IMPEACHMENT HEARING IN WORKS?

Nothing will happen: Pelosi is a lost cause. She's led the congress to approve most of Bush's wish list for the past two years, and the American people properly rates them below Bush.

cicerone, it'll be an interesting addition to the election cycle.

agreed CI.

Kucinich is the man.

Nancy Pelosi is a C*nt and that's all I have to say about that.

It'd be fairly stupid for the Democrats to act at this point.

They've got a strong advantage going into the election, it can't be denied. The Republican base is demoralized, unsatisfied with the quality of their candidates or the policies of their party, and sitting on their checkbooks. The -last- thing the Dems would want at this point is to spark a huge partisan impeachment battle that might have the effect of galvanizing Republicans.

'sides, what would be the point? Even if they moved on it immediately, there's no way an impeachment trial would be over by the election anyway. ;p

Why not impeach them after the election? Or after Obama is in office? It isn't as if there is a time limit for it.

Cycloptichorn

What is the statute of limitations on impeachment?

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001604.html

There is no Statute of limitations on impeachment, and certainly not when someone leaves office.

Cycloptichorn

Action today, shedding light through public hearings, sets further action down the road when Bushie is out of office and loses immunity. Kucinich is impeaching for lying us into war. About 60% of Americans believe Bushie did deliberately lie us into an unneeded and unjust war of choice. I cant think of a bigger crime a man could commit. Mass murder. The crime is so huge and costly it would be inhumane not to prosecute Bushie and Blair and their cohorts who lied us into a war of choice. A citizen who kills 3 people at work has most everyone calling for his head but lying into war is ok to let slide? The death, maiming, suffering, destruction of this war is immeasureable. But the financial cost is massive also up to 2.5 TRILLION by some respectable accounts. The burdon of that will be borne by future generations. Pelosi has been so wrong all along taking apeachment off the table considering what Bushie has cost us with his war. And the war is just one of Bushie's impeachable offences. It's about time Pelosi at least allowed a public airing of what we already know. But Bushie's real problems will begin after he leaves office. Meanwhile the GOP candidate goes around singing bomb bomb bomb Iran. His supporters say a new terrorist attack would be great. An escalation of the war crimes would hopefully, to the war mongers, so embroil the world in war that they'll escape justice for a world war they started for no good reason. Sickest of all is that talk of a Rapture sought by Bushie's major constituency is far from hidden. We know millions support this war and an escalation into WW3 and Armageddon for a Rapture. It's one sick "holy war" being waged and that aint hidden any. That's some real perverted sh!t.

Colin Powell in Cairo February 24, 2001:
"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Condoleeza Rice, July 2001:
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
http://100777.com/node/589

If Pelosi remains the head after January 2009, the likelihood of an impeachment proceeding against Bush and company drops to zero.

I'm not even sure she'll be any help to a democratic president, but almost assures McCain great support.

Pelosi, Kucinich..... (many more names with a D in front of them)....

It reminds me of the Special Olympics.

Red Cross reports U.S. war crimes POSTED July 11, 9:28 AM
A secret report by the International Committee of the Red Cross has concluded the United States Central Intelligence Agency's intterrogation practices constitute torture and Bush Administration officials are guilty of war crimes, according to a new book on counterterrorism efforts.

The book, "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals," by Jane Mayer, who writes about counterterrorism for The New Yorker, offers new details of the agency's secret detention program, as well as the bitter debates in the administration over interrogation methods and other tactics in the campaign against Al Qaeda.


Citing unnamed "sources familiar with the report," Ms. Mayer wrote that the Red Cross document "warned that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted." (Link)

What invariably follows this kind of post are comments from folks asserting they are OK with the CIA (or whoever) using whatever means necessary to avoid another terrorist attack. While there's plenty of evidence and testimony from profressionals (who actually know what they're doing) that torture as an interrogation tool is inneffective, maybe there's some value in considering only the Red Cross assertion: laws were broken and officials are culpable.

By virtue of Senate ratification, the Geneva Convention serves as both international and U.S. law. Other U.S. statutes prohibit the use of torture. Therefore, any use of torture by agents of the U.S. government is in violation of the law, and those conducting and authorizing that torture are culpable under those laws. And subject to prosecution.

The Bush Administration had, initially, attempted to confuse the issue by denying the use of torture by the United States. The Administration strategy then shifted to a more deliberate obfuscation; redefining what constituted torture and claiming publicly the U.S. did not torture (at least to the new definition they had developed). At this point, the Administration seems to have given up almost entirely on attempting to deny the U.S. is using torture and claiming that whatever they're doing is working since there's been no attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

But ends don't justify means and laws were broken. And whether they're ever held accountable, it makes the Bush Administration no less responsible.

link

blueflame, That knowledge was well known for many years, and yet nobody did anything to a) stop it, b) challenge it, and c) charge Bushco with a crime.

It's useless, my friend; the other two branches of government isn't working.

cicerone, maybe to you it's useless. To me he did the crime and I aint gonna say he wont do the time. When he leaves office he'll lose immunity and may very well face international war crimes charges. I'll be shocked if charges aint brought. Not saying where that will lead but legit charges will be brought. I just watched Jonathin Turley on Olbermann saying he never thought he'd see the day when he would say that America will be forced by the international community to face up to war crimes but he thinks charges will be brought. I know how easy it is to not believe justice could be done against the President of the world's only Superpower but on the other hand the crimes are so blatent and documented and just the fact that it's being discussed on network tv in America is a tell.

I can hope you are right, but this has been discussed before by legal beagles; even about charges by the international court. A few years have already passed.

Yes a few years have passed. And in the meanwhile evidence is being compiled. The Red Cross report is new. Every year, day that passes Bushie comes closer to losing the protection of immunity that goes with his position. Leaving that position is key. As I said I'll be shocked if charges are not brought by reputable organizations. What will come of those charges I know not. But as a dedicated follower of current events as they happen the one sure thing I know is Bushie is guilty as guilty gets. Tony Blair too. I dont need Nancy Pelosi to admit that and her position leaves her open to charges of enabling war crimes.

Too bad the supreme court will be spared; they're complicit in those crimes by not stopping it while having the responsibility.