Isn't it time to impeach Bush?

How many if any republicans signed the letter?

None. Notable as well is the conspicuous absence, apart from Conyers himself, Barney Frank, Jim McDermott, and Pete Stark, of any "Leading Democrats". Further, the list of signatories amounts to well under half the Democratic members of The House. I believe that all speaks most eloquently for itself.

The night is young and the lady of abundant proportions is still in the wings. :wink:

Timber wrote


How so? What speaks for itself is that not one republican wants to know. Perhaps that is because they know there is no acceptable answer.

Swooosh!



Niiiiice.

What speaks, au, is that fewer than half the House's Demoncrats - all highly partisan, very active opponents of The Current Administration, and an even lower fraction of House Democratic Leadership, signed the letter.

parados, I call your attention to the actual letter Itself (Note: 8 page .pdf file)

Inconvenient to your thesis, the letter in final, as-signed form was sent more than a week ago. Note too, if you will, that among the signatures attached are numerous intervening blank signature lines. That crew didn't even get that part right

Timber
That's a glass half full, half empty argument. Don't you think that the congress and the people of the US have a right to an explanation. Democrat, republican and independent.
Wouldn't you like to get to the truth of the matter or is it that you are afraid to hear it.

au, lotsa folks are of the opinion some folks simply refuse to accept the simple truth of the matter.

Timber
What do you think the simple truth to the matter is? IMO the simple truth is that Bush was determined to invade Iraq and effect a regime change come hell or high water.

I think the simple truth of the matter is that the Iraq action is part-and-parcel of the overall War on Terrorism. I believe decisions were made and action taken on the basis of reasonable, prudent assessment of the best-then-available intelligence. I believe subsequent events have validated those decisions and actions - handsomely. I believe there is a demographic institutionally opposed to effective, proactive, unflinching American action on the global stage. I believe there is a demographic so consumed with grief over the decline of The Democratic Party's influence over domestic affairs as to stoop to the absurd to press their discreditted, rejected-by-the-electorate cause. I believe honest and honorable politicians is an oxymoron, but I do not believe those currently at the helm of the ship of state even begin to approach the nefarious character attributed to them by The Opposition. I believe The Opposition, in endorsing and practicing such tactics as they have adopted, moves itself ever further from The Electorate with every such ludiculous campaign they undertake. I believe that untill the loonies, fringies, and extremists of The Democratic Party lose their grip on the Party, the Party's future is assured - and bleak. I do not believe rational, moderate, responsible, electorally effective behavior will soon overtake The Democratic Party.

I do not think today's Republican Party is altogether correct in its platform, but I believe The Republican Party is far less incorrect in such regard than is The Democratic Party. I'm not even convinced The Democratic Party since 2000 has a platform beyond "Get back into power from which we assert we were meanly and wrongfully ejected through no fault of our own".

Here's a recent column from one of my all-time favorite columnists.

They Lied to Us
By Molly Ivins
AlterNet

Tuesday 10 May 2005

I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful, "How did we get into this mess?" However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go unmentioned.
Meanwhile, back in Iraq. I was going to leave out of this column everything about how we got into Iraq, or whether it was wise, and or whether the infamous "they" knowingly lied to us. (Although I did plan to point out I would be nobly refraining from poking at that pus-riddled question.)

Since I believe one of our greatest strengths as Americans is shrewd practicality, I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful, "How did we get into his mess?" to the more utilitarian, "What the hell do we do now?"

However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go unmentioned.

On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct cliché is "smoking gun."

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (There it is.) The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

After some paragraphs on tactical considerations, Rycroft reports, "No decisions had been taken, but he (British defense secretary) thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US congressional elections.

"The foreign secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

"The attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case."

There is much more in the memo, which can be found easily online. What's difficult now is placing the memo in the timeframe. Can you remember how little you knew about a war with Iraq in July 2002? Most of us who opposed the war concluded some time ago this was the way it went down. There was plenty of evidence, though nothing this direct and cold. Think of the difference it would have made if we had known all this three years ago. Now? The memo was a huge story in Britain, but is almost unreported here.

The memo does get us some forwarder. At least it finally settles this ridiculous debate about how Dear Leader Bush just wanted to bring democracy all along and we did it all for George Washington.

Enough said. What to do? Now that we're there, at least we're on the right side, not even withstanding the disgusting Ahmed Chalabi as oil minister. Unfortunately, our very support for the good guys is making it much harder for them. A tactical catch-22. I was impressed by the premise of Reza Aslan's new book, "No God but God," which is that all of Islam is undergoing a struggle between the modernists and the traditionalists, between reformers and reactionaries.

But in Iraq, which already had a secular state, we have the additional complication of sectarian/ethnic divisions - your Sunnis, your Shiites, your Kurds - not to mention, the tribalism within those divisions. (Am I bitter enough to point out once again that Paul Wolfowitz said under oath, "There is no history of ethnic strife in Iraq"? You bet your ass I am.)

Our most basic problem in-country is that having the US of A. on your side automatically makes you about as popular as a socialist in the Texas Legislature: We are working against the guys we want to win by supporting them. This requires some serious skulling but is not, in politics, all that unusual a pickle.

There is a political solution. Like all politics, it requires a deal. What about letting the interim government make a deal with the Sunnis for us to withdraw - as in, "You cooperate with us, and we'll get the Americans out of here for you." We can't make that deal, but the Iraqis can.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Ivins is a best-selling author and columnist who writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

The White House and Downing Street prepared a credible military option while continuing to seek a diplomatic resolution to Iraq's intolerable, continuing, blatantly defiant intransigence. The option to avoid military action rested entirely with Saddam Hussein. Saddam chose.

Yet another feeble attempt to explain away;

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushdumbpeople.htm

Yet another feeble attempt to denigrate the legitimate, prudent actions of the principled and resolute.

Let me see, support dictators and then turn on the dictators, all while those policies are supported by lies and craven self interest. Those aren't the definitions for legitimate, prudent, principled or resolute. How many Iraquis, I wonder, are lying in graves now, soaking up this "democracy"?

Why wouldn't these self appointed saviors even take the trouble to find out how many innocents they've killed? Why isn't there ever any sadness expressed/ remorse shown for all these innocents? Why? Because saving the Iraqis isn't, never was, the reason for the invasion.

You should check with one of your neighbors to see if one of them might lend you a dictionary. I'm sorry, Timber but the truth hurts sometimes. You were obviously one of those 95 odd, million folks.

The Democrats know why elections don't go their way any more - it must be folks are just too dumb to vote Democratic ... just hasta be that, right?

Faced with unassailable truths, the republican/conservative flies off on a tangent, any ole tangent.

For a great example of this, see

================
CNN Crossfire: "UK Memo Proves Bush Fixed Intelligence" for War

Finally a 24/7 has brough up the British memo.

The republican [in the video] can't even defend the president. His argument is about the election results. Would the election results have been different if we had the memo prior to Nov. 2nd?
==================

AVAILABLE FROM: http://www.crooksandliars.com/

Maybe something will become of this.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0527-24.htm

Coalition of Veterans' Groups, Peace Groups and Political Activist Groups form "AfterDowningStreet.org"

WASHINGTON - May 27 - A coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups announced a campaign today to urge that the U.S. Congress launch a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. The campaign focuses on evidence that recently emerged in a British memo containing minutes of a secret July 2002 meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials.

John Bonifaz, a Boston attorney specializing in constitutional litigation, sent a memo to Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, urging him to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House to impeach President Bush.

Bonifaz's memo, made available today at www.AfterDowningStreet.org, begins: "The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution."

Good for Bonifaz!