ImpeachForChange

Wexler Lights Impeachment Fire in Congress

Bob Fertik — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:24:29 -0500

As promised, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) went to the floor of the House to demand impeachment hearings, and he set the House on fire with his passion! Watch for yourself:

You can see Wexler holding the printed signatures of nearly 200,000 activists from Democrats.com and our pro-impeachment allies. (And thanks for thanking all of us, Rep. Wexler!)

How to Create a Congressional District Impeachment Committee

Bob Fertik — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:11:57 -0500

Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leaders in Congress say impeaching Bush is "off the table." We must change their minds!

Our plan is simple: we will form Impeachment Committees in all 435 Congressional Districts to persuade all of our Representatives to support impeachment.

Help us Impeach Bush by taking the following 4 steps:

1. Join (or create) an Impeachment Committee in your Congressional District.
2. Collect petitions and handwritten letters.
3. Build support for impeachment by holding an educational town forum, writing letters to the editor, etc.
4. Meet with your Representative, deliver the petitions and ask them to Impeach Bush.

More detailed instructions are below.

1. Join (or create) an Impeachment Committee in your Congressional District (existing committees here)

Login to Democrats.com
Check your profile to make sure your Congressional District is correct - if not, click "Change Personal Information" below Voter Registration and fix your address (no apartment please), then save the changes - if the Congressional District is still wrong, contact us with the correct district
Click the "Local" button in the navigation box at the upper left to check for the latest announcements in your Congressional District (also County and State)
Look for an announcement of an Impeachment Committee in your Congressional District. If you do see one, reply to it and say you want to help.
If you do not see one:
- click the link to "create forum topic"
- for subject, enter "Impeachment Committee"
- for forum, choose "Impeachment - Congressional District Organizing"
- for topic, choose "ImpeachForChange"
- for subscriptions, click the box if you want to get an email when someone from your district replies
- for local, choose "Congressional District"
- in the body, identify your Congressperson by name (if you don't know click here)
- add the address of their District Office by searching for their name here and clicking their name and looking under "Contact Information" for the "District Office"
(note: newly elected Members will not have offices until January)
- Propose a time and place when local activists can conveniently meet
- we suggest Saturday at noon at the busiest place in town, but another time and place might work better for your group

2. Collect petitions and handwritten letters (click printer-friendly version below to print this page)

download our petition form
print as many copies as you'll need (19 signers per page)
bring clipboards and pens
bring blank paper for handwritten letters
bring an ironing board for letterwriting (optional)
wear impeachment buttons or anti-war buttons
stand in a safe location that gets a lot of foot traffic (but don't block anyone)
as people approach you, ask them in a reasonably loud voice if they would like to sign our petition to impeach Bush
if they say yes, hand them the clipboard and pen and thank them
tell them you will email them when you get home so they can sign our full petition online and email it directly to their Representative and get a personal reply
ask them if they have another minute to write a personal letter that you will hand-deliver
here is a simple letter they can copy or modify:
[Date]
Dear Rep. X,
I urge you to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for violating the Constitution and breaking the law. I am particularly upset that they:
- lied about Iraq to start a war
- allowed torture of prisoners
- gave corrupt no-bid contracts to their rich friends
- wiretapped our phones and emails without a warrant
Sincerely,
[Name and address]
when it's time to leave, find a copy shop where you can make copies of the petitions (not handwritten letters)
bring (or mail) the original petitions and letters to the Representative (you can call in advance to get the name of the District Manager and schedule a brief visit)
keep the copies to keypunch the emails (only) into our petition invitation form
the keypunchers should login and click here:
http://democrats.com/impeach-petition
and look just below the message for the "send to friend" link
the "send to friend" page lets you keypunch up to 20 email addresses, one per line
copy/paste all the emails and save them in a convenient document (Email distribution list, spreadsheet, or Word document) for future organizing in your community
press "submit"
this will email each person and invite them to sign our petition

3. Write letters to the editor and op-eds and call radio and TV talk shows because Representatives pay attention to the issues people are raising in the local media.

4. Organize a Honk-to-Impeach event - if possible do it every week, same time same place.

5. Schedule a district meeting with your Representative

Your Representative spends some work weeks in Washington and some at home.
November will be mostly in Washington, December and January mostly at home.
Designate one well-spoken person to call the District Office and request a meeting with a group of impeachment supporters to discuss why impeachment is absolutely necessary.
Each member of the group should read and bring one book or serious article on impeachment and prepare a couple of sentences for the meeting summarizing the most important argument in that book or article.
The group should meet for coffee an hour before the meeting to discuss who will say what and avoid duplication.
The person who scheduled the meeting should be the first to speak and thank the Representative for the meeting and then let each person say their name and neighborhood
One person should take notes
The key questions to ask are:
Do you agree that invading Iraq on the basis of lies is an impeachable offense?
Do you agree that allowing prisoners to be tortured is an impeachable offense?
Do you agree that wiretapping countless innocent Americans without a warrant is an impeachable offense?
Do you agree that nullifying laws with signing statements is an impeachable offense?
If you agree that one or more are impeachable offenses, what will it take for you to publicly support impeachment?

6. Organize a Town Hall Meeting on December 10, 2006.

Details here.

Find Your Congressional District Impeachment Committee

Bob Fertik — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:49:47 -0500

AL03, AZ01, AZ03, AZ08, CA01, CA03, CA05, CA06, CA07, CA09, CA11, CA13, CA14, CA13-14-15, CA23, CA25, CA26, CA28, CA29, CA30, CA36, CA37, CA38, CA47, CA49, CA50, CA51, CA52, CA53, CO01, CO03, CO07, CT04, CT05, DC00, DE00, FL01, FL02, FL06, FL08, FL10, FL16-19-22, FL18, FL20, FL24, GA07, HI01, HI02, IA05, IL01, IL03, IL05, IL09, IL11, IL13, IL16, IN01, IN05, IN06, IN09, KS01, KY06, LA02, MA01, MA03, MA04, MA05, MA06, MA07, MA08, MA10, MD03, MD06, ME01, MI03, MI06, MI07, MI10, MI12, MN01, MN04, MN05, MO03, MO08, MA02, MS03, NC02, NC04, NC05, NC06, NC09, NC10, NC11, NC13, ND00, NE03, NH01, NH02, NJ01, NJ12, NY05, NY07, NY08, NY09, NY10, NY11, NY12, NY13, NY14, NY15, NY18, NY19, NY20, NY21, NY22, NY23, NY24, NY28, OH11, OH18, OK01, OK05, OR01, OR02, OR03, OR04, PA06, PA07, PA08, PA11, PA13, PA15, PA17, PA18, PA19, SC03, SD00, TN05, TX07, TX18, TX24, TX25, UT01, UT02, VA02, VA03, VA06, VA07, VA08, VA11, VT00, WA01, WA02, WA03, WA06, WA07, WA08, WA09, WI02, WI03, WV01, WV02

Don't see a committee in your district? Help us create one! http://democrats.com/cdic

Lincoln Chafee Calls Bush Worst President in History

davidswanson — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:24:54 -0400

By David Swanson

Former Republican Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee on Tuesday evening called George W. Bush the worst president in U.S. history and the occupation of Iraq the worst foreign tragedy in U.S. history. Chafee said Bush deserved to be impeached.

Chafee served in the U.S. Senate from 1999 to 2006 and credits his defeat in 2006 - as do most analysts - to his membership in the party of Bush and Cheney. In 2003 Chafee was the only Republican senator to vote against authorization to attack Iraq. Chafee and John McCain had been the only two Republican senators to vote against the first round of Bush tax cuts.

While Chafee is supporting Barack Obama for president, he said on Tuesday that the Democrats as well as the Republicans have moved too far to the right. Without any apparent bitterness, Chafee remarked that while voters got a new Senate and House in 2006, they didn't get any changes in policies out of it.

Chafee made his remarks on a radio show I hosted, the audio of which can be found at
http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net/audio/2008

The discussion focused on Chafee's new book:
http://www.davidswanson.org/node/1245

A Fire-Breather in Congress

davidswanson — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:05:09 -0400

By David Swanson

Rep. Robert Wexler (Dem., Florida) has written a book, soon to be released, that is as different from most congress members' books as Wexler is from most congress members. He's titled it "Fire-Breathing Liberal: How I Learned to Survive (and Thrive) in the Contact Sport of Congress." Wexler is depicted on the cover with the Capitol in the background and his fists in the air.

Wexler is a fighter and a liberal, and - yes - one CAN be both. But Wexler, I think, is more of a fighter than a liberal. He's unusually willing to speak up and fight for controversial positions. He does so loudly and articulately, and he goes for the jugular. But I don't find in his book any passionate or deep liberal world view. In fact, at times, Wexler expresses viewpoints that I find disturbingly illiberal.

I would have titled the book "Fire-Breathing democrat." I made the 'd' lowercase on purpose. Wexler, far more than most members of Congress, appears to take the positions supported by his constituents. It is his constituents who turn out, more often than not, to be liberal. That Wexler listens to them so extensively and carefully and then acts on their wishes with a resolve and determination that can singe your eyebrows is what makes Wexler that rarest of Congress Members, a Democrat with a spine.

Wexler is not the only aggressive progressive in Congress. His most daring positions - on impeachment, on Iraq, on elections - are a step behind someone like Dennis Kucinich, who also pulls no punches. But Wexler has a voice in the media that is unique, I think, because his positions are not so far opposed to those of the corporate media that he's shut out, and because he likes a fight. In his book, he's smart enough to quote right-wing media attacks on himself rather then running from them. More Democrats do the wrong thing, more often, because they're afraid of media attacks, which would actually benefit them, than for any other reason.

Wexler's book is not an outline of his view for our political future. And it's not a campaign book laying out positions. While it is an autobiographical account of Wexler's years, thus far (since 1996), in Congress and a brief account of how he got there in the first place, the book's larger aim seems to be civic education. Wexler explains to readers how elections are won and lost, how positions are advanced, how compromises are made, and how bills actually become what nowadays passes for "law." This is an education that every American needs. "I want," Wexler writes, "to bring you inside the system in the hope that we can begin to change it together."

Some may recall seeing Wexler passionately defending against the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, or demanding a full recount of the 2000 election in Florida. Wexler represents the district with the butterfly ballots and the mythical "Jews for Buchanan" votes. Others may know of Wexler as the House Judiciary Committee Member who began pushing last year for Chairman John Conyers to take up the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Wexler did that, in large part, because his constituents asked him to, because he listens to them, and because he knows how to think in terms of offense. A Democratic Party that played offense would be holding impeachment hearings and forcing John McCain to defend every impeachable offense.

Others may recall seeing Wexler in recent months grill various Bush witnesses in committee hearings. Since Wexler came out for impeachment, his questioning of witnesses has out-shown most other representatives'. Just go to Youtube and look up Robert Wexler.

Wexler voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq, and now says he regrets having done so. He claims to have believed the White House lies about Iraq, something I think could only be true if Wexler were far less intelligent than he is. In fact, Wexler claims that those who said there were no "weapons of mass destruction" prior to the invasion were just guessing and explains that it only became clear the White House was lying when no weapons were found. Actually, of course, that would only prove that the White House had been mistaken. While the evidence that Bush and Cheney and gang were lying has piled up over the years, it was abundant prior to the vote. Kucinich circulated an analysis of it to his colleagues. Here's the evidence, old and new:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments

Wexler also claims not to have known that his constituents would disapprove of that vote. That seems possible. But Wexler now knows that his constituents want out of Iraq, and yet he has voted over and over again to fund the occupation, and he is not leading a fire-breathing charge against the funding bill now under consideration. I suspect that nonsensical "Don't defund the troops" sound-bytes and a misguided notion that militarism goes very well with a fighting image are weighing on Wexler more heavily than the opinions of his constituents this time (except perhaps the opinions of some campaign donors -- somehow these books manage to avoid the whole topic of donors).

Wexler was one of three Democrats to vote for immediate withdrawal when the Republicans proposed a parody of Rep. John Murtha's withdrawal proposal as a political stunt. Wexler is not afraid to stand alone or lead the way, but that doesn't mean he always does so when liberals might wish he would. Wexler likes to talk about withdrawal proposals as a way to "put pressure on the Iraqis," as if 80% of them don't want full withdrawal and haven't wanted it for years. Wexler writes of how much he loves "The Star Spangled Banner," a war song.

The real liberals in the House, on the other hand, don't know how to breathe fire. The current war funding bill has been arranged to include separate votes on the war money and on other matters. The Blue Dog (rightwing) Democrats joined with the Republicans last week to block a vote on the Rule to bring the whole thing up, because they opposed spending money on things like helping veterans and wanted to proceed only with creating more veterans. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), of which Wexler is a member, has many more members than the Blue Dogs and could easily block the Rule in opposition to the war money if Speaker Pelosi finds a way to buy off the Blue Dogs. But CPC Co-Chairs Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, and Out of Iraq Caucus Chair Maxine Waters won't do it, and won't persuade enough progressives to fall in line if they do. They're not breathing enough fire.

Social Security is a topic where Wexler has breathed liberal fire. Of course, he bought into the pretense that Social Security is broken and in danger of collapsing, because outside of that frame one couldn't be part of the debate. But once he'd done that, he made the best move possible by releasing a detailed study of how Social Security could be fixed by eliminating the cap on payroll taxes that currently makes income above $90,000 tax free. And Wexler helped win the debate, holding off the destruction of Social Security, while the cap on taxes still remains.

Wexler's fire breathing also breathed new life into the impeachment movement last year, which has only stalled (though it's far from over) because too many Democrats on the Judiciary Committee refuse to listen to their constituents the way Wexler does. Publicly lobbying your colleagues and the chairman of your committee to do something that has been publicly opposed by your party's leaders, the other party's leaders, and the corporate media is almost unheard of. But Wexler did it when he asked his colleagues and ordinary citizens to join him in pushing for the start of impeachment hearings. Wexler made new and brilliant arguments for impeachment and presented a case that won over some congress members and a lot of other people. Thus far, 235,000 people have signed his petition at
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com

Wexler has received a Backbone Award for his efforts:
http://www.backbonecampaign.org/storydetail.cfm?id=219

Wexler is also rare in his willingness to talk about the stolen 2000 election as stolen and to openly admit the high probability that other elections have been stolen since the advent of DRE (electronic) voting machines and the misnamed Help America Vote Act. Yet, Wexler seems to believe that machines with "paper trails" or paper ballots scanned by optical machines solves the matter. In fact, collecting paper ballots or receipts is only valuable if they are counted, and optical scan machines have resulted in as many highly questionable elections as have DRE machines. I expect that when Wexler realizes this, or realizes that his constituents realize it, he'll advance the fight.

Wexler's book defends his positions and his past work, but it is not pretentious, and he includes plenty of accounts of failed efforts and questionable decisions as part of the civic education process. He also admits to compromising his positions under pressure. President Clinton persuaded Wexler to back a corporate trade measure ("fast track" negotiating) that he knew his constituents opposed and that he says he opposed. In return, Clinton gave Wexler opportunities to participate in foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.

Wexler's district is heavily Jewish, and he is Jewish. Throughout his book he never makes a distinction between the needs of the Israeli people, the plans of the Israeli government, and the desires of his Jewish constituents. All would appear to be one, had Wexler not already told us that his constituents opposed the war. Never does Wexler suggest that the Israeli government may be doing what is not in the best interests of the Israeli people, although the bulk of his book is a denunciation of a Republican-run U.S. government radically resisting the will of the American people. Perhaps Wexler's listening to his constituents could sometimes benefit from a finer grained analysis.

Wexler recounts his foreign travels on U.S. diplomatic business, including a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad. He writes that Assad asked him whether Bush was crazy enough to attack Syria. Wexler said yes, and writes that he was grateful, in this instance, that such a thing was true. Fire breathing, yes. Liberal, no. Likely in the long run to improve the chances of peace? Of course not.

But Wexler also writes at some length about his involvement in efforts to aid Indonesians following the recent tsunami, and how aid and friendship build peace:

"I remember seeing a sign, a white bed sheet on which someone had written by hand in paint and magic marker, 'America is here. Where is Bin Laden?'"

Wexler understood this to be an expression of gratitude for American assistance. Wexler also worked with and nominated the President of Indonesia for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Wexler's book contains positions I don't like, but many more that I do, and it is a remarkably open and honest book for a politician to have put into the light of day.

If you want to know how Washington works, read this book.

If you want some hope that it can work better, watch what Robert Wexler does next.

If you want a representative who listens to you, retire to Palm Beach, Florida.

Will B will be a hip hop star

davidswanson — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:37:59 -0400

OPEN FOR MORE!

David Swanson Debates Peace and Impeachment with Right-Wing Callers

davidswanson — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:15:53 -0400

The Dave Congalton Show - April 23, 2008, in San Luis Obispo, California.

mp3 Podcast.

From http://www.920kvec.com

Mission Accomplished: 5th Anniversary

Bob Fertik — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:33:42 -0400

4,064 US soldiers killed, up to 1.2 million Iraqi civilians killed. Ten times those number badly wounded, physically or mentally. Up to 5 million driven from their homes, while nearly all Iraqis suffer from lack of clean water, electricity, and jobs.

The only missions accomplished: destroying the nation of Iraq and handing the pieces to Iran, breaking the U.S. military and treasury, increasing global terrorism, and making the world hate the U.S.

No wonder Bush is the most unpopular President in polling history - the first to break 70% disapproval.

Those responsible? Still in power, and a 50-50 chance of remaining in power for 4 more years.

Impeach. Indict. Imprison. Immediately.

Update 1: Juan Cole:

Bush imagined that he could get rid of Saddam Hussein and install exiled businessman and bank fraudster Ahmad Chalabi in his place. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told Congress that the US would be out of Iraq, except for a division (20,000 men or so), by October of 2003. Wolfowitz and other Bush officials depicted Iraqis as secular and downplayed the possibility of ethnic violence in the aftermath of the overthrow of the Baath Party...

The "mission accomplished" banner was the least of it.

As for the present, the struggle between the al-Maliki government, backed by the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and its Badr Corps militia on the one hand, and on the other the Sadr Movement with its Mahdi Army militia (all of them Shiites) made April among the deadliest months in Iraq since last September. Official figures show 1,073 Iraqis killed in political violence and 50 US soldiers killed. AFP says of Iraqis, "1,745 civilians, 159 policemen and 104 soldiers" were killed in April.

Update 2: Valtin reflects on the Simon Wiesenthal Center's decades-long efforts to hunt down Nazi war criminals

The geriatric status of Heim, Lam, Demjanjuk and others has not prevented them from being charged with crimes, and they will no doubt be pursued one way or another for the rest of their remaining lives.

U.S. war criminals -- currently uncharged -- like George W. Bush, president of the United States, and other members of his administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.), should ponder the fate of the Nazi pursued by justice, even unto their last years. No matter what they think they can get away with, if a party or regime in this country ever comes into power and sets its aim as cleaning up the crimes of this country, whether to serve justice, or as a matter of realpolitik, needing to reclaim some measure of integrity internationally, then Bush et al. had better have set aside a defense fund.

This is in addition to the possibility that other countries may choose to extradict or prosecute those criminals who aggressively invaded a sovereign country (Iraq), killing over a million people, and then proceeded to torture thousands or tens of thousands of individuals. Attempts to prosecute Donald Rumsfeld for torture have been made in France, Germany, Argentina, and Sweden.

Funny Math, Part II: Impeachment

davidswanson — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:33:13 -0400

By David Swanson

There is a widespread myth that an impeachment cannot happen in the space of the nine months Bush and Cheney are scheduled to remain in office. But I'm unable to find any past impeachment that took as long as nine months. It's messy comparing one impeachment to another, as they are complicated and varying processes. But a few things are clear: most impeachment efforts achieve important results quickly, without actually achieving impeachment (think Elliot Spitzer or Alberto Gonzales); it is not uncommon for impeachment efforts to begin later in an administration than where we are now (think Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman); while preliminary investigations of the sort that have been done on Bush and Cheney for the past year and a half can be dragged out for months, impeachments tend not to last long; and while Senate trials can be delayed and dragged out for many months, impeachments in the House tend to be short-lived events.

An impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney for an indisputable offense (refusing subpoenas, refusing to enforce contempt citations, rewriting laws with signing statements, openly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, etc.) could take literally one day. Such a thing would not be unprecedented. President Andrew Johnson was impeached three days after the offense for which he was impeached. Senator William Blount was impeached four days after the offense for which he was impeached.

There is no reason impeachment hearings on Cheney or Bush should be limited to the simplest crimes or rushed through at top speed. Public education might benefit from a slower process. My point is only that it is possible to impeach rapidly. A senate trial can also serve as an educational forum. Below are some of the dates I've been able to find on how long past impeachments have taken. A better researcher might add to this collection. In several cases, I have dates for the duration of the Senate trial, but not for the House impeachment, the duration of which may in fact have been negligible.

A Senate trial can also be completed quickly, and there is no requirement or precedent for including every obvious impeachable offense. (In fact, there is no precedent for elected officials being guilty of so many obvious impeachable offenses or for the public being so aware of impeachable offenses prior to an impeachment.) The Senate expelled Blount the day after he was impeached. Judge Halsted Ritter's Senate trial took 11 days. Judge John Pickering's trial took nine days. Judge James Peck's trial took three days. Judge West Humphreys' trial took one day.

Two presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

Johnson was impeached three days after committing the offense for which he was impeached, and prior to drafting articles of impeachment. Within a week, a committee drew up charges, and 11 days after the offense, the House delivered the charges to the Senate. The trial process began the next day, and in under three months it was over.

The House began impeachment procedures for Bill Clinton on October 8, 1998, and impeached him on December 19th. The Senate trial lasted from January 14, 1999, to February 12, 1999. The whole four-month farce took less than half the time remaining to Bush and Cheney.

Of the presidential impeachment movements that did not reach impeachment, the most well-known is that against Richard Nixon. The House began impeachment on May 9, 1974, and passed the first of three articles of impeachment on July 27, 1974. Nixon resigned on August 8th. Of course there were lots of preliminary investigations, but those have already been done for Bush and Cheney.

Most impeachments have not been against presidents, but rather judges, cabinet officers, senators. These impeachments seem to take about as long as presidential impeachment do, and offer no support to the myth of long impeachments. In addition, much other business has been accomplished at the same time as these impeachments.

On July 3, 1797, evidence of an offense by Senator William Blount became known. Four days later, the House impeached him and the next day the Senate expelled him.

Evidence of an offense by Judge John Pickering became known on February 4, 1803, and the House voted to impeach him on March 2, 1803. The Senate didn't try him for another year, but spent 9 days on it when it did so.

Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase was impeached in late 1804 (I don't know how long the impeachment took) and 30 days later he was tried in the Senate, which completed the trial on March 1, 1805.

Judge James Peck was impeached on April 24, 1830, a month after the Judiciary Committee recommended it. The Senate took up the trial the following January and spent three days on it.

Judge West H. Humphreys was impeached on May 19, 1862. The Senate tried and convicted him in one day on June 26, 1862.

Secretary of War William W. Belknap was impeached on March 2, 1876, and the Senate trial was completed on August 1, 1876.

Judge Charles Swayne was impeached on December 14, 1904, and his trial was over on February 27, 1905.

Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached on July 13, 1912, and the Senate trial was over on January 13, 1913.

Judge Harold Louderback resigned before his impeachment went to trial.

Judge Halsted L. Ritter was impeached on March 2, 1936, and the 11-day Senate trial ended on April 17th of the same year.

Judge Harry E. Claiborne was impeached on July 22, 1986, and the trial ended on October 9, 1986.

Then Judge and now Congressman Alcee L. Hastings, was impeached on August 3, 1988, and the Senate trial was over on October 20, 1988.

Judge Walter L. Nixon was impeached on May 10, 1989, and the Senate trial was completed on November 3, 1989.

There are nine months remaining to Bush and Cheney. If you think that is a short time, you are not a mother.

Impeachment Is Possible: Here's Why

davidswanson — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:57:10 -0400