Michael V.; I assume you forgot about James Guckert/Jeff Gannon, the homosadist prostitute and erstwhile White House press corps member assigned to ask Dub "softball" questions. Records indicated regular visits far in excess of those necessary for news gathering, and at odd hours. These visits correspond to the President's presence at the White House (He vacationed plenty and often raised funds out of town.). Closer scrutiny might uncover Camp David, Kennebunkport and Crawford Ranch sessions. They might even have met in a secure undisclosed location or mile-highed on Air Force One. Dub has a history of same sex activity in Skull and Bones and other all male organizations. Gay is OK, except when the partaker is a gay basher and rights denier.

everything but a blowjob in the oval office. however, I'm sure Bush has been on his knees in front of Chaney once or twice.

I was wondering how Bank of America morphed into a South Carolina firm owned by Saudi Royals? Anybody know? I was once a customer there and it was an Italian bank centered in California, San Francisco.

Bush is the worst president in American history. Bush facilitated the 9/11 attacks. Subsequently, Bush lied to Congress and the American people relative to the reasons for invading Iraq. Bush purposefully misled Congress and the American people. Then, Bush murdered more than 4,000 United States service members. And Bush wounded more than 30,000 United States service members. In torturing prisoners of war, Bush patently violated the Geneva Convention. Bush unlawfully wiretapped United States citizens. In using “signing statements” to challenge hundreds of laws passed by Congress, Bush violated the Constitution. Bush has ignored global warming. Bush is guilty of criminal negligence relative to the response to Hurricane Katrina. Bush disobeys our democratic values and Constitution. Bush is a disgrace to the United States.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA

Two questions:

Last week, when questioned about the cover of the New Yorker Magazine, Senator Obama concluded his answer by stating that the New Yorker has their 1st Amendment rights. Ironic because just days before the New Yorker incident Obama voted to kill the 4th Amendment. How regal to be able to select and choose which Amendments to support and ignore. Will the 1st Amendment be next?

A few weeks ago Carl Rove failed to appear for a Congressional Hearing. Rove says he will testify but not under oath and not if recorded. Why does Rove expect a right to secrecy & privacy when he and his cronies can wiretap & record any American Citizen without their knowing it?

Sorry for the double posting. My mistake.

Jeanne Zindorf
San Luis Obispo

Re: Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s Resolution for Impeachment of President George Bush made before the House of Representatives on June 9, 2008. I immediately responded to my Representative with an open letter to Congress, Speaker of the House Pelosi, with a follow-up call. I also contacted Congressman Kucinich expressing my full support. Mainstream media is ignoring this most historic event. Please Mr. Moyer do not allow Congressman Kucinich’s most historic and critical Resolution for Impeachment to disappear without a whimper. Make it the News that it is. This is the letter I sent to Congress.

Dear Congresswoman Capps and Members of Congress,

Thank you for the update on bills you have helped get passed. It was helpful in understanding all that is being done on our behalf. However, my primary concern at this point is if President Bush is able, and the Patriots Act did enable him, to declare war on Iran without Congress, and then using his commander-in-chief status to declare martial law. When that happens all your works and efforts are for not. Congress will not have any power to make any laws, block, prevent or control a President who has declared himself the sole authority on all matters of governing.
Congress's inability to actually stop the war, stop the funding for the war, control gas prices, or influence the president in matters of the greatest concern to us is merely a prelude of things to come. Congress has already shown itself to be so afraid of this president by giving into him on issues we have clearly expressed as non-negotiable, end the war, that I doubt you will have the where with all to act on critical issues in a timely manner.

Representative Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolution is such an issue. And you have shelved it. An impeached President cannot declare war. An impeached president cannot declare himself commander-in-chief, or declare Martial law. An impeached president is powerless. By spending your time and effort on legislation unrelated to the issue that is of the greatest importance to us as a democracy, which is our Constitution, is indicative of our confidence in your ability to recognize those things that are going to make a difference now and in the future.

This president is unworthy to be representing us as a leader of a democracy. I am ashamed of what we have done under this president and what we have become. The American people have spoken. We do not want this war. We do not want another war. We want peace and prosperity. That is not going to happen if president Bush is allowed to continue to bully Congress.

Does Congress really think they will be able to get their act together in time to stop Bush from declaring war on Iran and declaring himself commander-in-chief? I do not think so. Except for one very brave representative from Ohio, Congressman Kucinich, who has introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush, there is little trust in this Congress that they will not turn over our government to Bush on a sliver platter whenever he wants it.

I beseech you to embrace Congressman Kucinich's resolution and unite with all your other fellow devoted Americans in Congress and stand up to the bully Bush. This will unite us again as Americans and prove to us you can be trusted with our democracy with our very lives.
If you ignore the historic significance of this resolution or doubt or mistrust Rep. Kucinich's intent and devotion to our democracy then you doubt every soldier and American’s devotion and love for this country. Nothing at this moment in time is as important to us as a nation than to be able to remove that which is the greatest threat to our hope, dreams and well being. This President is a threat as the impeachment resolution so plainly and clearly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you shelve this resolution, ignore it; cover it up, then you are ignoring the reasons why we are Americans and everything that America stands for.
Please make this resolution a reality for all our sakes and for the sake of mothers, sons, daughters and fathers everywhere. It is your duty and responsibility to act on those issues that insure our well-being, protect, defend and uphold our Constitution. It is your duty to sign the Resolution for Impeachment.
Most sincerely yours,
Jeanne Zindorf, San Luis Obispo, CA

Re: Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s Resolution for Impeachment of President George Bush made before the House of Representatives on June 9, 2008. I immediately responded to my Representative with an open letter to Congress, Speaker of the House Pelosi, with a follow-up call. I also contacted Congressman Kucinich expressing my full support. Mainstream media is ignoring this most historic event. Please Mr. Moyer do not allow Congressman’s Kucinich’s most historic and critical Resolution for Impeachment disappear without a whimper. Make it the News that it is. This is the letter I sent to Congress.

Dear Congresswoman Capps and Members of Congress,

Thank you for the update on bills you have helped get passed. It was helpful in understanding all that is being done on our behalf. However, my primary concern at this point is if President Bush is able, and the Patriots Act did enable him, to declare war on Iran without Congress, and then using his commander-in-chief status to declare martial law. When that happens all your works and efforts are for not. Congress will not have any power to make any laws, block, prevent or control a President who has declared himself the sole authority on all matters of governing.
Congress's inability to actually stop the war, stop the funding for the war, control gas prices, or influence the president in matters of the greatest concern to us is merely a prelude of things to come. Congress has already shown itself to be so afraid of this president by giving into him on issues we have clearly expressed as non-negotiable, end the war, that I doubt you will have the where with all to act on critical issues in a timely manner.

Representative Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolution is such an issue. And you have shelved it. An impeached President cannot declare war. An impeached president cannot declare himself commander-in-chief, or declare Martial law. An impeached president is powerless. By spending your time and effort on legislation unrelated to the issue that is of the greatest importance to us as a democracy, which is our Constitution, is indicative of our confidence in your ability to recognize those things that are going to make a difference now and in the future.

This president is unworthy to be representing us as a leader of a democracy. I am ashamed of what we have done under this president and what we have become. The American people have spoken. We do not want this war. We do not want another war. We want peace and prosperity. That is not going to happen if president Bush is allowed to continue to bully Congress.

Does Congress really think they will be able to get their act together in time to stop Bush from declaring war on Iran and declaring himself commander-in-chief? I do not think so. Except for one very brave representative from Ohio, Congressman Kucinich, who has introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush, there is little trust in this Congress that they will not turn over our government to Bush on a sliver platter whenever he wants it.

I beseech you to embrace Congressman Kucinich's resolution and unite with all your other fellow devoted Americans in Congress and stand up to the bully Bush. This will unite us again as Americans and prove to us you can be trusted with our democracy with our very lives.
If you ignore the historic significance of this resolution or doubt or mistrust Rep. Kucinich's intent and devotion to our democracy then you doubt every soldier and American’s devotion and love for this country. Nothing at this moment in time is as important to us as a nation than to be able to remove that which is the greatest threat to our hope, dreams and well being. This President is a threat as the impeachment resolution so plainly and clearly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you shelve this resolution, ignore it; cover it up, then you are ignoring the reasons why we are Americans and everything that America stands for.
Please make this resolution a reality for all our sakes and for the sake of mothers, sons, daughters and fathers everywhere. It is your duty and responsibility to act on those issues that insure our well-being, protect, defend and uphold our Constitution. It is your duty to sign the Resolution for Impeachment.
Most sincerely yours,
Jeanne Zindorf, San Luis Obispo, CA

The Bush administration’s actions and policies have been so detrimental to our nation (the campaign of deceit that led us to war, the justification and practice of torture, the establishment of secret prisons, the abrogation of basic human rights) that it seems the essence of our country is dying. The precedents that this president will leave behind are malignancies that need be excised. For the sake of our democracy, our future security, our standing in the world, and our souls, President Bush should be impeached.

I am more proud than ever today to call Congressman Dennis Kucinich my friend. Despite the fragile state of our country we need to prosecute this serial felon, traitor and mass murderer George Walker Bush before he leaves office.
I was watching him on the BBC last night all coked up and reciting to the Slovenians a retard version of his Iran lines. What an abomination! What a "sack of feces"!

Impeach Bush now.

It isn't too late. Our leaders should be impeached then tried for treason and crimes against humanity.

Could it be that all members of the house are afraid of this pair? Or is everyone receiving gratuities they prefer to not be made public? What hold does our pres and vice pres have over the entire congress?

With the rise of Blackwater, are they all fearful for their lives?

Hopefully this attempt of mine to post a link to Congressman Wexler's web page will succeed. See comment I posted below earlier today which lacks a link. In short if you want hearings to begin, please put your name on the list for reasons given in the comment below.

http://wexlerwantshearings.com/

If you would like to see Cheney impeachment hearings begin, and if you haven't already done so, put your name on the list at US Representative Wexler's web page,

WexlerWantsHearings.com.

Yes, another "petition", but for a unique opportunity where timing is important.
The name list was set up about December 14 and may be taken down in January after it has served its purpose.

The creation of the name list web page about Dec 14 was a next move after major media, mainstream media, specifically large newspapers, out and out rejected an op-ed calling for immediate hearings which had been written and signed by Representatives Wexler, Gutierrez, and Baldwin - all members of the House Judiciary Committee where the impeachment resolution, H Res 333 / H Res 799, has been on hold.

The list of names of Americans who want hearings to begin is to be plopped down, figuratively, in front of the HJC after they get back to work on Jan 15 as evidence that the impeachment effort is not of a fringe group but of a substantial group of Americans. The larger the list, the more likely to convince. So far it is not that big when you consider the number of voters.

But n the same way major media rejected the op-ed, they have been reluctant to mention what the Wexler group is doing and plans to do. The names accrued so far are a result apparently of blogs, diaries, meet-ups, social networks, etc. the extent of which can be seen by Googling on the web for relevant words like WexlerWantsHearings.

In Raw Story: Spurned by major newspapers
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Spurned_by_major_newspapers_Dem_Congressman_1214.html

The OpEd: A Case For Hearings
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/14/5839/

The three Committee members may have been joined already by another, Congressman Weiner, also of the committee.

There are on the Committee five others who are actually are co-sponsors of the resolution. Baldwin is also a co-sponsor. Thus, there are probably a total of at least nine members who will be, soon after the persuading begins, for hearings.

The reasons these happenings are significant include:

I don't understand why we are here, 7+ years into the Bush "Presidency", and wondering about impeachment at this point. The fish rots starting at the head, and in year 2000 it should have been clear to anyone who wasn't brain dead that George Bush was (and of course still is). The really troubling thing is that this individual was foisted on us, and it was done with half the American electorate voting for him and his cast of evil puppeteers. We still need to impeach him and the "Vice President", yes. Of course that's true. But better yet, we need to institute a baseline test of neurological competency to hold that office. If such a test had been in place in 2000, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in now.

This isn't about democrat or republican, it's about America and our constitution - it could be either party abusing the presidency. We have a group of individuals in this administration, not just Cheney and Bush, that are on the path of authoritarianism, or fascism for that matter. They behave ignorantly with no knowledge of history, geography, human rights or the constitution - which is specifically written to limit the power of a president. The fact that most of this administration's top legal advisors have resigned on an ongoing basis over the course of this administration is telling. When their mandated periods of silence expire, I believe this administration will have enough evidence against it to put them behind bars. That is, however, if the judiciary and media aren't all corporate friends and relatives and we as citizens still have freedom of speech!!!

This isn't about democrat or republican, it's about America and our constitution - it could be either party abusing the presidency. We have a group of individuals in this administration, not just Cheney and Bush, that are on the path of authoritarianism, or fascism for that matter. They behave ignorantly with no knowledge of history, geography, human rights or the constitution - which is specifically written to limit the power of a president. The fact that most of this administration's top legal advisors have resigned on an ongoing basis over the course of this administration is telling. When their mandated periods of silence expire, I believe this administration will have enough evidence against it to put them behind bars. That is, however, if the judiciary and media aren't all corporate friends and relatives and we as citizens still have freedom of speech!!!

So Bush is like Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin... is this really where we're at? Didn't Naomi Wolf work for the Clinton/Gore campaign... good source to use

To Lee Partide commentary on July 14:
Regarding the comparison of Bush to Hitler....
Please read the book "The End of America" by Naomi Wolf. She has researched history and has found a pattern or a blueprint for destroying democracy for the purpose of establishing a dictatorship. She found that the Bush Administration is employing all the techniques that Mussolini, Hitler, & Stalin have used to gain more power for their own agendas.

I fail to understand why so much money and time was spent to impeach Bill Clinton, and NOTHING is done about Bush and Cheney who have committed so many impeachable and even treasonable offenses.

Is everyone just asleep, or is our entire government in the hands of Corporate Globe?

If we are hated around the whole world, then why has Europe been electing "pro-American" candidates? What laws have been broken? Clinton broke laws. Didn't Sandy Berger go into the National Archive to steal all documents pertaining to Clinton's strategy on Bin Laden just before the 9/11 Commission was about to meet? Didn't he do so by stuffing the highest of classified documents down his pants and socks? Isn't he a "unofficial" adviser for Hillary? Why did Berger do this? There is only one reason he would.

What a shame that this is even a debate.

The Bush Cheney administration have lied to and spied on American citizens, have broken laws, have disregarded and disgraced the Constitution, have made made us one of the most disliked countries on earth.

Remind me what the reasons for not impeaching them are?

Kucinich is my favorite long lost Beatle

How can you have a discussion about impeachment and not include Dennis Kucinich, the only true democratic candidate for President in 2008, and his bill HR 333, calling for impeachment?

I suppose if I said things you liked you would be okay with me posting as much as I do. Instead of actually trying to argue the points I make you insult me. I have chronic kidney failure so I can't do much, so that explains my availability. My question to you is, why are you paying attention to what times I am posting? I have yet to look at what time someone has posted their opinions.

Jesse Norman,
You sure do post a lot here. Long, long angry messages at all odd hours. Might want to take a break there, bud.

Every President would be impeached then

In deference to the late Johnny Cochran . . .

IF THERE IS A BREACH !
YOU MUST IMPEACH !

Come on Jay, you're about as independent as Kato Kaelin. The only way you're independent is if you hover between the democratic party and the green party. "Refuse to believe the obvious" is your code for saying "I have no proof of what I'm talking about". I blame Bush for a lot. He did nothing about Bin Laden before 9/11, even though he was only President for less than nine months. Bush should not have given the Taliban a month so Bin Laden could hide in the mountains. It was his ego over our military might that had him give the Taliban time to hand over Bin Laden. That was a foolish thing to do. He has yet to seal both borders even though we have good intelligence showing terrorists have come over both borders. They stopped building the fence that was put into law a while ago. Bush is allowing illegals keep on stealing our jobs and lowering our wages of jobs we do have because of competition by the illegals making less than minimum wage. We should rescind NAFTA because of the outsourcing of our jobs and made Mexico even more corrupt than it was. Oh, Clinton adopted NAFTA with the help of a republican congress. Still, Bush is all for NAFTA and outsourcing of jobs, which I am dead set against. I want universal healthcare. I want regulation over the oil industry. I want a ban on assault weapons. Bush kept the idiot Rumsfeld in way too long even when it was clear he had no idea what he was doing, and wouldn't change strategies. Those are some big issues I'm against Bush on. I'm afraid that just because I defend Bush on points of why he shouldn't be impeached, it doesn't mean I worship the man. I know as "independent" as you are and those like you are, yet you all still have trouble believing that there's a middle ground on this. I bring up Clinton a lot because he did things that were worse but I didn't want him impeached. I'm sure none of you yelled at the top of your lungs wanting Clinton impeached for every conspiracy theory under the sun.

9/11 was done by mostly Saudi terrorists. Accept it and move on. We didn't kill 3000 of our own citizens. Bush isn't causing global warming. Mars has gotten even warmer than Earth in recent years. Explain that one. Republicans didn't hold a secret meeting in the Batcave with Bush saying "we need to take Iraq for ourselves. MOO HAHAHAHAHA". Believing in conspiracies doesn't mean you're smarter than everyone else. There are things that happen but many of you just won't accept reality. When most CLEAR thinking people know things just happened, people like you excuse it by saying "you're misguided" or "you fell for their propaganda". There hasn't been a historical event that ever happened that's not come into question by you people. You come up with these ridiculous conspiracies because it helps you feel smarter than you actually are. What is funny though is that you think you have the "real" answer on things. The "real" history of what really happened. Got a bunch of Dale Gribbles from "King of the Hill" around now. "That's not really black you know. Bush had the Navy come out with its own color so that way they could build the foundation for the dumb conservatives to fall for their future propoganda. They had help from the Israelis because as you know, the Israelis are always in on everything we do, man." Maybe you should all look in the mirror and realize that's a real reverse image of you, and not some high pixeled computer image brought to you by the CIA and following your every move like you're in The Truman Show.

Well spoken! The question is WHY? Then it is WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Impeachment may not happen, those in Washington do not seem to be listening. It may all come down to our vote in the next ellection.

I had an advisor tell me one time that “the best predictor of the future is the past.”
It is undeniable that history tends to repeat itself once it fades from social consciousness.

When it comes to deciding how to vote in the next election, it may be wise to take a lesson from the past and vote for someone who is in favor of Getting Out of Iraq and moving toward a diplomatic/mentoring/facilitation solution.

Below are some comparisons that point out the importance of this decision.

Her are some facts I looked up comparing the death statistics of Iraq and Viet Nam.

Iraq Deaths
First 4 years = 3794

Viet Nam Deaths
First 4 years 1956- 60 = 9
Second 4 years 1961-65 = 392 (Linden Johnson)
Third 4 years 1966- 69 = 35,751 (Linden Johnson)

Forth 4 years 1970-73 = 20,863
Next 24 years = 1178
Total = 58,193

The next President is critical if we want to avoid the mistake of escalating this situation and letting it get out of hand.

The lesson of Viet Nam is not what some have determined -- that we went in with out an intention to win. This is an erroneous conclusion.

The lesson to be learned form Viet Nam is that when the US interjects itself into the middle of another country’s civil war, a military solution is a futile strategy. Iraq is a war we cannot win. Linden Johnson's, came to power in 1963 and decided the US should WIN the war in Viet Nam by sending more troops, fire power and money. The numbers show the failure of such a strategy.

We must elect someone who will change the strategy and work for a solution to the mess we have gotten ourselves into. Winning is no longer the issue. Damage control is the issue. And, wouldn’t it be the right thing to do to admit this now before tens of thousands of our men die.

I was in high school between 1962 and 1973, I have lived through the disruption and societal upheaval already, take my word, we do not want to repeat this.

Let’s not waist time, money and lives we could be spending on shaping the new world we live in for the progress of humanity.

I am a New Yorker as well and I second your notion. There are many unanswered questions and debate is silenced and dying.

The neo-con republicans are unmistakably sophisticated in their ability to manipulate debate through talking points and character assassination. No other political organization comes close to approaching their cohesiveness, dogmatism and funding. They are shaping the world to benefit an elite cadre of ultra-wealthy and have displayed moral ambiguity and killer instinct that liberals lack.

How does this relate to 9/11? Because 9/11, regardless of truth and the cloud of misinformation seeded by the neocon republicans, has become a tool for their accretion of wealth and power. Because regardless of neocon talking points, easy-on-the-brain mantras, and general misdirection, our Constitution and the foundations of Democracy are being and have been corroded.

Whether Republican or Democract or Non-affiliated independent, the fact of the matter is the majority does not benefit from the neocon rise to power.

9/11 at its heart is a tragedy of exploitation. Exploitation of the American people and regardless of our differences, the net effect has been suffering inflicted by Americans on Americans.

Who will shoulder the burden of a trillion dollar war? Why is a public fresh with the memory of Enron so complacent when this looming spectre of economic mismanagement and book cooking threatens the masses? Perhaps the wrong talking point is being used? Perhaps the public should be told they are being "taxed". This war inflicts a tax that will be paid by each and every citizen and their children for generations to come. It will be paid by regular folks that are struggling to maintain quality of life taken for granted by our parents. When the government buys 300 billion dollars of fighter planes, that money is coming from us. That's 300 billion less for schools, for hospitals, for roads, for police, for every thread in the fabric of our community. And none of that money was spent to make us safer.

Millions of innocent lives have been destroyed by US military action in Iraq. Are we so egocentric as a society to ignore the injustice in attacking and invading a sovereign nation? Or lacking in empathy to see the Iraqi anger that is fermenting from this invasion? The reality is that the US has caused destruction that destabilizes an entire region, affecting hundreds of millions of lives. The reality is that the neocons continue a drumbeat of war to renew their coffers. The reality is that the current administration uses terror as tool, no less so than the terrorists they purport to battle.

There is an elemental wisdom that transcends time and place. That wisdom offered by Socrates, Buddha, Confucious and others is that we should ask questions, of ourselves and of society. For knowledge, for enlightenment, for responsibility, we must question. In light of this simple wisdom, we must ask questions of our leaders. "Why" is a pillar of freedom. Why were we systematically lied to about prior knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Why was French intelligence ignored? Why did the towers collapse like a controlled demolition. Why were there no explosives forensics allowed on the rubble. Why was there a powerdown of security systems prior to the attack. Why were bomb sniffing dogs removed. There are so many questions unanswered, so much debate silenced under the the suffocating muffle of flag and cross.

We repeat history's mistakes. A nation stands by as innocents die. Was Nazi Germany so different? Is our jingoism and religious fervor no less manipulated? When we stop questioning, when we allow debate to be controlled by an elite cadre of avarice, we allow atrocities to be committed. Our government has not been investigated nor have they been held accountable for its hand in 9/11. Nor has it been held accountable for the crimes it has committed in Iraq. Why is the question we should all be asking.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am a regular viewer of Bill Moyers Journal and applaud you for giving voice to so many courageous people. I'm dismayed, however, that you have not incorporated any of the dozens and dozens of questions being posed by the 911Truth.org movement. There are critical holes in the official 9/11 story regarding WTC7, the Pentagon crash, the Twin Towers collapse, and the Pennsylvania crash. Polls are registering huge percentages of people who believe that key members of the American government were complicit in the attack (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040830120349841). Many of the brightest technical minds are on board with this. Many key people in positions of authority are also.
I personally believe, after much reading and investigation, that 9/11 was a false-flag operation that allowed the present government to go to war and take away civil liberties. These latter two issues are frequent topics on your program.
Please take a moment to look into events of 9/11 with a fresh perspective. It is a brave step, but it is one that could lead to the real truth, the truth that we must have. Please do not dismiss the questions, nor the inconvenient answers until you have read the arguments. Droves and droves of people are seeing the light as I see it. Please come along with us on this quest. - ricep, New York City

Jesse, you refuse to believe the obvious when it comes to Bush but quickly believe anything negative about Clinton. As an independent I hold all accountable.

That's more reality for ya. 9/11 an inside job... puleez.

I am a regular viewer of Bill Moyers Journal and applaud you for giving voice to so many courageous people. I'm dismayed, however, that you have not incorporated any of the dozens and dozens of questions being posed by the 911Truth.org movement. There are critical holes in the official 9/11 story regarding WTC7, the Pentagon crash, the Twin Towers collapse, and the Pennsylvania crash. Polls are registering huge percentages of people who believe that key members of the American government were complicit in the attack (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040830120349841). Many of the brightest technical minds are on board with this. Many key people in positions of authority are also.
I personally believe, after much reading and investigation, that 9/11 was a false-flag operation that allowed the present government to go to war and take away civil liberties. These latter two issues are frequent topics on your program.
Please take a moment to look into events of 9/11 with a fresh perspective. It is a brave step, but it is one that could lead to the real truth, the truth that we must have. Please do not dismiss the questions, nor the inconvenient answers until you have read the arguments. Droves and droves of people are seeing the light as I see it. Please come along with us on this quest. - ricep, New York City

Your reality I think is peyote-laced, with all due respect. I think your continual posting of "The real reason we're in Iraq" is something you have saved on your computer and you post that same thing on every blog you find. No way someone repeats themselves like that in verbatim unless they have it saved. If that's true, then that's really disturbing. You can have your own take on reality. I want no part of it.

To: Jesse Norman

Go ahead and live with your attitude against Clinton if it makes you happy. If you have time open your mind up to reality.

I hate people that's the one true emotion that calls me out to challenge them to a difficult round of it...I was born to stick the needle in the balloon heads of the world...
gary alan brumley

You guys really are funny with your views. What if I don't get rid of the chip on my shoulder over Clinton? Get real. Jay P, if you were speaking on this thread you'd sound like a tape recorder. This is the third time you've said that same exact thing, one on another thread. Guess what I asked three times to you... in case you didn't answer correctly, it was "WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?????!!!!!" I still haven't got an answer.

To: Jesse Norman
You seem to make many assumptions when it relates to Clinton but are very defensive with Bush. Get rid of the big chip on your shoulder.
The Real Reason We're In Iraq:
An influential group of conservatives convinced President George W. Bush that it was in America's best interests to conquer Iraq as a first step toward dominating the oil-producing nations in the Middle East. There was no "exit plan" because we never intended to exit. The plan was, and is, to build military bases in Iraq and stay there forever. Our leaders see Iraq as a place to make money. So Bush & Co. have set up their friends to cash in on the rebuilding of Iraq.

If you have not let your congress critters know your views on impeaching the current occupant and his puppet master I strongly encourage you to do so. If you do not know how to contact these people here is a URL that will help resolve that small item http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm

Let your elected officials know what you are thinking and what you'd like them to do, while there is still time and before all your rights are taken away by the imperial shrub.

While the Congress hesitates to impeach the President and Vice President, what are the alternatives for citizens who think that the President and Vice President have committed crimes against the nation? For instance, is making a collective citizen's arrest a possibility?

"A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Simply put, without firepower, people are less likely going to be able to make a citizen's arrest. A random sampling of the various states as well as the District of Columbia indicates that a citizen's arrest is valid when a public offense was committed in the presence of the arresting private citizen or when the arresting private citizen has a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a felony, whether or not in the presence of the arresting citizen." (For details, see http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm.)

If committing a felony is the benchmark for determining whether a crime has been committed, are violations of their oath of office felonies. For instance, if they violated their oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States, is that violation a felony?

You've said quite a mouthful Deep Throat. Let's see if I can break down your list:

1. Failed to prevent 9/11: well Bush wasn't even in office for 9 months when it happened. Although I don't feel he did enough if anything at all to prevent it, Al Qaeda was hitting us all over the world when Clinton was in office and Clinton did absolutely nothing about any attack.
2. Failed to kill Osama: you're right, he did. Here's something you won't like reading though. Sudan offered Clinton three times for them to capture Bin Laden, ship him to Saudi Arabia where we could then take him. Clinton said "we can't get him on anything under international law" so he refused. He denies this, but he was caught on audio tape not only getting these offers but declining.
3. Manipulating emotion for Iraq war: I totally disagree, but that's just my opinion as it is yours.
4. Blaming Katrina on Bush is just foolish. While he may have not acted quick enough, the citizens who were trapped in New Orleans were supposed to have been evacuated. Mayor Nagin released a free dvd a year before Katrina saying if there was a Cat. 3 hurricane or higher that they would evacuate the city. Those who had no way of leaving would have school buses escort them out of the city. This didn't happen in Katrina. New Orleans didn't evacuate and the buses were left under the water just like everything else. Is Bush supposed to tell the mayor and governor to evacuate their own citizens? No, that's their job. Blaming Bush for this is ludicrous.
5. Partisan Supreme Court: Bush is President and can nominate who he wants.
6. Corruption in congress is Bush's fault? Republicans had Abramov and the democrats have Hsu. What's the difference? There is one... Hsu was a fugitive from the law for larceny when he did his fundraising. Wound up giving $850,000 to Hillary Clinton. The addresses of those who donated, collected by Hsu gave as much as many of their homes were worth.
6. I'll skip down to global warming: Did you know Mars is warming even at a faster rate than Earth? According to NASA Mars has gone up .65 degrees celsius while Earth has gone up .60 degrees celsius. NASA came to that conclusion because of Mars' polar caps. When I was a kid I remember the consensus among scientists was that we were in an ice age. Remember that one? Made the cover of Time magazine even. Since they have talked about global warming for the last twenty years or better, that means within a decade scientists went from ice age to global warming. How does that happen? Can man create such a warming? Nope. Only the Sun can. That explains the warming of Mars too, unless you believe Bush is warming Mars by lasers.

Most of these are too easy, but you get my point. I agree with the outsourcing of jobs big time, but who adopted NAFTA? Clinton did. Remember Gore arguing with Perot on Larry King in that debate where Gore was arguing for NAFTA? We're still losing jobs to NAFTA and Mexico has only gotten worse. I can play these games all you want. Gotta do better than this. Dividing our nation happened when the left cried about how Al lost the election with all of those silly allegations about how Bush stole it. Even Bill Maher admitted nothing illegal or wrong happened and he hates Bush. Those votes in Florida with the hanging chads were counted by the press. According to the media who was in on the counting, Bush gained votes, not lost them. They probably wanted Gore to win in their count because that would have been a huge story. Bush gaining votes obviously wasn't. Releasing spy ID... the woman sent her own husband. DUH! Who's not going to know? She even said she doesn't know whether or not she was undercover at that time. Did you watch her testimony on Capitol Hill? Sorry, had to get to a few more.

Carol, the info I got I found online which was done by the media research center. Glad you don't like the extremist views because a lot do. Moveon.org will be emboldened since NONE of the democratic presidential candidates not only denounced the ad, but gave it credence by parroting it.

Deep Throat, those were too easy.

With all of these failures, there's gotta be something to impeach this one.

1) Failed to prevent 9/11
2) Failed to Kill Osama
3) Manipulating 9/11 emotion to lead us into Iraq War
4) Katrina
5) Partisan Supreme Court.
6) Corruption in Congress
7) Corruction in Business
8) Tax relief for Haves.
9) Uncontrolled Medical coverage.
10) Record deficit/debt.
11) Rising oil costs.
12) Global Warming.
13) Ignoring Genocides and world pandemic diseases.
14) Ignoring War on Drug.
15) Illegal Aliens.
16) Off-shoring US jobs.
17) Dependency in foreign manufacturing facilities.
18) Failed financial regulations.
19) Shrinking middle class, increasing gap between haves and have nots.
20) Loss of credibility in the world and weakening world alliances.
21) Violating Civil Liberty.
22) Releasing spy ID.
23) Refusing to cooperate with GAO, FBI, CIA, Congress by hiding behind executive privileges and national security.
24) DIVIDING OUR NATION.

Thank you, Jesse. We do agree on some things. You have a point. Personally, I take extremist comments with a grain of salt. I don't believe we had much choice but, to trust the President's decision to go to war based on what he and the media presented. If it's technically a war, a not is debatable. I don't know where you are getting your information but, I understood Moyer's to say that the D.C. press tend to be the President's righthand man. At any rate, I don't believe anything should be based on surface value and find a complex world deserves better. The transparency we often hear about and that is so desperately needed becomes the center when we turn away from lies and deception in times of desperation or otherwise. It starts with each of us(me).

Finally we seem to agree on something Carol. There is another thread on here from a show done by Moyers about how the press was complicit in convincing the country in going to war in Iraq. Of course many people actually bought this. No one in the press was "afraid" to criticize Bush because they have done it from day one. Is that a bad thing? No, of course not. But Moyers trying to convince people the press was Bush's right hand man is ludicrous. There's further evidence of the liberal bias in the media when Moveon.org received a hefty discount for putting that ad up about General Petraeus by the NY Times. Supposedly they received a $100,000 discount. The Times gave some bs excuse as to why they did, but anyone with any keen sense could see through that. Carol, your point to me beforehand was that the press wasn't honest. Which side were they going towards dishonesty? It would be the left wouldn't it? Obviously the NY Times weren't thinking of profits when it gave Moveon.org their discount. Obviously the print media isn't thinking about profits since their bias has turned many away from buying newspapers. Actually they can't resist themselves. Newspaper subscriptions are dwindling by the day. I don't think they really care about profits because their profits are down. Sounds logical, right?

I'm a realist and I don't try to see things just to validate my own opinion. I don't twist and turn things to suit my suspicions. I don't cheat myself with that kind of logical thinking. MLM you said you were a republican for many years but hated the rhetoric of the right. Have you heard of the rhetoric on the left, which is by far worse than the right? Moveon.org owns the democratic party. What happened this week when democratic politicians accused the General of the same thing as the Moveon ad did was despicable. You had a compulsive liar in Hillary Clinton call an honored General a liar. Dems all over the place called him a liar after many sang his praises as they casted their vote. None of them dared to question Petraeus as to why he would lie and then soon send off his own son to Iraq. When Bill Clinton was called a murderer by the far right over the death of Vince Foster, the republicans denounced it. When Moveon.org says anything the democrats nod in agreement. How many times have you heard Bush called "a nazi" or "Hitler", yet the democrats are loudly silent. Listen to the rhetoric on the left and see how it's NOT denounced.

Wait til '08 and see the rhetoric on the left with a more powerful Moveon machine. You might have heard in the '00 election about how if you vote for Bush another black church will burn. That will be nothing. When the american people see the rhetoric on the far left and see how it's not denounced by dems and vote for the republican, I really see Moveon.org possibly totally taking over the democratic party. They do say they have bought and paid for the democratic party. I have to agree with them.

Good point, MLM. Blogs can be addicting but, please, pace yourself. I believe your input is quite valuable and wouldn't want to lose touch. I believe that there are more that strive for the center are in more numbers than we've heard from or about. It gives me a sense of hope.

These Blogs are too addicting.

When it comes to the press, these old ideas of Right and Left leaning really no longer apply.

Today the press and the media have been consolidated into huge Corporations.
The driving force is profit, shareholders, and stock prices.

If anything they have all shifted to the right, because the right is completely pro business and deregulation.

One thing for sure, the idea that the media plays a valuable roll in keeping democracy in check is lost.

The reason this blog appears so one-sided is that it seems to be the only place where this point of view can see the light of day.

I am not excited about either party either. But not participating is NO option. My family heritage goes back, on at least three branches, to the 16 and 17 hundreds on these shores. Radical passionate individualism just runs in the family.

My political strategy at this point is to use my vote to try and bring the pendulum back closer to the center.

Thanks for your comments, MLM. I'm glad you just took a break and weren't away for long. Sadly, I'm not very impressed with any of the politicians. Right now I don't see myself at any party affiliation. Facilitating the truth in for democracy and freedom takes a joint effort in diplomacy and understanding without deception. It is a process that requires civil contemplation and debate. The occurances and exposure of that is, sadly, not a standard that is used enough today. We all have choices as well as responsibilities that must be addressed. Jesse, I don't know anyone is naive here except maybe the politicans, if they think the lies and deception will work for them, at least, in the long run.

You know I grew up believeing this BS about the press.
This is the debate that is truly irrelevant and trivial -- this seeking to demonize the opposition. It is a totally non-productive debate that diverts the masses from debating the real issues that affect our lives.

In order for America to work, it takes both the Left and the Right. What makes our County GREAT and keeps everything in check is the DEBATE between the two, NOT the annihilation of one over the other, as if it were a cockfight, as seems to be the mission of the Republican Party.

And, I say that not out of what I hear from the press but by the language of the automated phone calls and letters soliciting donations from the Republican Party. (I was a card-carrying member until recently) Also I receive this same rhetoric from my Republican representatives when they respond to my letters. Having been a conservative for 52 years, it is the Right Wing Rhetoric that has changed my viewpoint. Everything about the current regime is about shutting down debate by demonizing anyone that disagrees. THIS IS A DANGEROUS TREND.

I have lived through total Democratic control and now total Republican control. I speak from my own experience, I personally have NEVER experienced fear that my fundamental constitutional freedoms were in jeopardy until today -- freedom of speech, separation of church and state (which is the fundamental key to freedom of religion), freedom to be secure in my affairs under the 4th amendment. I see all of these eroding into an Elitist Theocracy reminiscent of 18th Century England -- conservative vs. liberal has just replace the 18th century protestant vs. catholic. The world has traveled down that road and we don’t need to revisit it, to do so is truly unAmerican.

In fact the key threat her is Elitism, which is running rampant on all sides.

Sadly, I don’t see any hope in the Democrats either

Well I'm not naive. I realize we don't live in Utopia where everything is at it seems or right. My friends think I'm actually quite savvy. Even the liberal ones. A lot don't like what I have to say, but they definitely respect what I say since they do know I know what I am talking about. Hey, it's a gift.

I know most on here won't agree with this, but the press mostly is left leaning. This story and others on PBS are just a small example. Do you recall the Moyer's piece "Let's Get Clinton Impeached"? I don't either because it never happened. MSNBC collected data on 143 journalists who made donations from the 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaigns, 125 gave to democrats or liberal causes while only 16 gave to republicans. 2 gave to both parties. Can't say MSNBC is right-wing since Joe Scarborough said the MSNBC newsroom booed when Bush was speaking at the State of the Union address in 2003.

In 1992, 89% of Washington based reporters voted for Clinton. In 2004, 52% of tv and newspaper journalists voted for Kerry, 19% for Bush, and 21% refused to answer. Let's split those who didn't answer and say Kerry had at least 62% of the vote from journalists. When asked "generally speaking do you consider yourself a democrat, republican, independent, or something else?", 33% said they were democrats while 10% said they were republicans.

Foxnews does lean to the right. The only reason why they look so far right though is because everyone else leans left. No one would care if Foxnews leaned to the right except they are doing very well in the ratings. See how I'm willing to admit Foxnews leans to the right? Will anyone else here admit most of the media leans to the left? I doubt it. Who's the naive one?

Jesse, I give President Bush, Republicans and even Democrats a fair chance to prove themselves worthy of govering us, but if you think that all journalism can be trusted and facilitates the truth in democracy and freedom such as the stories 9/11 and subsequent outbreak of war in Iraq, I find you quite naive. What I would like to know is... when does the healing begin with such outright "picking?" When we are not diplomatic enough, there is no choice but, war. A new administration would at least give us hope for peace, if, and maybe if, we can show them by example.

Meant dyslexia. Darn typos.

The evidence is in the 9/11 Report which was done by a bipartisan commission. Looks like they posted my comment afterall, only a day after I sent it. I'm sure some postings don't get through for whatever reasons but if you look at the other threads and it's at least 99-1 against Bush or the war. I've also seen the wackiest contributions on here as well. A lot of anti-Israeli sentiment, too. Yeah, blame the only civilized country in the region for protecting it's sliver of land against the continent scale lands of arabia.

Didn't know you were dyxlexic. In my first post I did ask if you meant WWII and really didn't know what you meant about "freighting". I assumed "frightening" but didn't know.

Jessie

I am sure your posts not getting uploaded is due to user error, the same has happened to my post and I never took it personally, as I have reposted from a word document and they uploaded just fine.

Thank you for pointing out my typos, and obvious problem with dyslexia. I really appreciate that, so kind of you. Of course I intended to say WWII.

I disagree that Bush “never” said that Iraq was responsible for attacking us on 9/11. I listened to him with my own two ears. He clearly connected the two and NO one would have made that connection with out the Bush propaganda. But I am sure you hung on his every word and were able to catch his every speech.

Show me the evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected, because the opinions and reports I have listened to say differently. The nonpartisan analysis that seems most reasonable points out that Saddam saw Bin Lauden as a threat to his power, he was much too paranoid of a dictator to allow Al Qaeda to operate out of Iraq. In my opinion this rings true.

Saddam was focused on two things, the local power play to control the Persian Gulf between Iran, Saudi Arabia and himself and his insane tribal hatred for his own citizens. These two things are what prompted him to invade Kuwait, which prompted the first Gulf War. He wanted Kuwait because the other two major players control so much more coastline and this inhibits his ability to compete in shipping his oil. Saddam was an insane, ruthless and evil character with no redeeming qualities. I am sure he is burning in hell. But, it is quite likely he never really had plans to attack the US, his neighbors for sure, but the US … his world was much, much too small.

Oh and by the way, I never supported, liked or voted for Bill Clinton. In my opinion he is just another sleazy Politician who cannot control his behavior. I have always agreed that he inherited the good economy rather than create it. And failed to see or take action to prevent 9/11. Passing the looming crises on to Bush. This is why I defended Bush in the beginning. But, I also do not think that anyone, including the terrorist could have anticipated what actually happened – the two buildings collapsing. So blaming in hindsight is really not a productive thing to do.

I still believe that if we give up our most basic freedoms we have let the terrorist win.
And I still believe this is what is happening. This administration response is DEAD wrong as far as I am concerned and rather that winning the war on terror we are just fanning the flames, giving justification to their hatred and feeding our own irrational fear.

I am really honest when I say I would rather die in another terrorist attack than to give up my basic liberty under the Constitution and live in a country that is not free.

I have grown weary of this discussion so I am signing off. Have a happy life.

Please excuse any typos or misspellings, spell check and unfortunately I are not perfect.

I guess I'll have to repeat what I tried to send earlier but wasn't posted. I think it was my nicest post too. Weird that I have read some postings calling Bush a murderer made it with no problem. No bias at all though.

I have never heard anyone in the administration say "Iraq was behind 9/11". It never happened, so what the poll shows is people will believe anything and certainly will believe what they want to believe. I can read postings here and say it's definitely not a one-sided flaw. Saying Bush or the administration tried to convince us that Iraq was linked to 9/11 is completely false. It never happened. What the Bush administration however said was there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, which there was. It is evident from the documents we've recovered as well as the knowledge that Al Zarqawi was treated in Baghdad before the war.

As far as comparing war speeches go, you can do that with anyone. You have to be smarter than that. What are speeches that rally people to war supposed to sound like? It doesn't even have to be about war. I bet if I had to I can find similar statements from Reagan and Ghandi. Were Ghandi and Reagan alike? No. What does 'freighting' mean? You lost me there. Hitler wasn't around in WWI either. I do strongly agree that the administration was very adamant about admitting mistakes, which made things worse. Rumsfeld was horrible and I celebrated the day he finally resigned. If I had more money I might have even invited all of you. Okay, I wouldn't have. I've never done drugs and I don't want to get a contact high. I guess also Jay P. is having trouble obtaining that evidence I have been waiting to see.

In an effort to rally support for a war, any speech will have similarities. That's just common sense. If I had to I could point out things how Reagansaid things that sounded like Ghandi. See, one can do that without comparing speeches on war, so that means nothing. Were Reagan and Ghandi two peas in a pod? No. Did you mean WWII? Because Hitler wasn't anything in WWI.

As far as the poll goes people will believe what they want to believe. What you accuse the administration of doing is simply not true. I have never heard of anyone in the administration say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, therefore not being able to persuade people of believing such a thing. They did say there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda which was true. The more time went by the more documents were found linking them together. Al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and received treatment on a wounded leg in Baghdad. There are other things linking Saddam with Al Qaeda which you can find on the net. If anything the administration didn't differentiate one terrorist or terrorist organization from the other, which it shouldn't do. There are many with the same objective and there's no amount of appeasement that will make them change their minds.

While I agree we should have concentrated more on getting Bin Laden, the status quo of the Iraqi situation was unacceptable. The UN loved Saddam despite his crimes because they got money and cheap oil. Who are the real criminals? Who really should be impeached? Why does the UN even exist when it runs away from its own charter time and time again? My question for all of you is do you believe we should go into Darfur even if and when the UN says 'no, we won't do anything'?

Several people have objected to the comparison of this Administration and Hitler. I agree that this is a strong statement and of course has a strong element of hyperbole. I in no way wish to say that the leadership in Washington even comes close to that level of insanity and evil.

Still there are, I believe some freighting similarities, in the tactics and inflammatory rhetoric that have and continue to come from this Administration. Rhetoric used to build support for the invasion of Iraq when our justifiable retaliation for 9/11 belonged with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The use of fear for persuasion, the demonizing of opponents, the unwillingness to admit mistakes, the refusal to change the tone of this rhetoric even after it was made clear that the basis for entry was false…is what concerns me most.

According to a Harris poll

In 2004 41% and still in 2005 22% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

In 2005 24% of Americans still believe several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=623

Neither of which has been proven true. This belief was fostered by this Administration.
This is clearly, in my opinion, cause for alarm. I cannot say why this Administration was so intent on attacking a country that, no matter how evil and corrupt it was, did nothing to provoke our attack. And posed no immediate danger to the US.

I am reading a book about WWI at the moment. In it are several quotes form Hitler, to me there are obvious similarities to the tactics used by this Administration to sell this War.

“I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war no matter whether it is plausible or not. The vector will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not. When starting and waging war, it is not right that matters by victory.” Adolph Hitler

“The broad mass of a people…falls victim to a big lie more easily that to a small one.” Adolph Hitler

“ But the masses are slow moving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of time will the masses finally remember them…” Adolph Hitler

Absolutely, Jay P. Still didn't tell me where your evidence is.

Sorry, to intrude Jay P but, you might be over simplifying the situation. Technically, Bush & Company's motives to directly benefit from Iraq's oil would be a conflict of interest and, I believe, grounds for impeachment. I'm glad the military study came out in the news today that we need to take "lighter steps" in Iraq and move closer to ending the war without occupation and it's a relief to hear from hearts that may be in the right place. How the President responds seems to be the difference between him being able to then keep his job to the end of this term or not. It'll be interesting how it plays out. It also seems that the executive branch is watering down the responsibilities of the legislative and judicial branches as well... other items in Pandora's Box.

To: Jesse Norman
Thanks for your comments. Let me ask you this, if this war was started so Bush and Co. could benefit from the oil and taxpayer expense, would that be an impeachable offense?

Jay P, where is your evidence of this? You know what evidence is, right? I can make up stuff all I want too but just because I can come up with it in my mind, it doesn't make it fact. Please tell us if you were a fly on the wall when all of this was supposedly discussed. I'd be interested in reading it. I'm tired of all this "American imperialism" talk. Name a country we have really taken over and kept. I don't recall ever hearing the saying "the sun never sets on america". If we went into Iraq because of oil, then how come oil is so high-priced throughout the world, not just in our country. Why do I have a big chip on my shoulder because of Clinton? Because he was very corrupt and I'm sure hardly any of you actually accept that he was. The only thing he really got credit for was a good economy and that was falsely accredited. He was just president at the right time with the internet boom. Just as he was leaving we had the internet bust. Al Gore should have gotten the credit for the economy since he invented the internet.

Carol, you make a very good point. One side pits against the other almost like in a play. There's the good side and the bad side. Each side sees the other as the bad side, although I never heard Clinton compared to Hitler on the right like Bush has been nearly on a daily basis. It's almost like it's a setup. While most of America is in the middle, both parties play to their bases and nothing gets done. They worry more about playing "gotcha" than solving our nation's problems. My points have been consistent that selective anger does nothing because both sides have it. When a president is elected, he will have selective outrage pitted against him. That's the state of our country right now. If we left Iraq right now, what happened in Vietnam after we left would pale in comparison. You can argue whether or not we should have gone in and if we screwed up or not. Saying Bush lied though is delusional considering every democrat who said Saddam had WMD's along with every country in the world, Clinton, and Hans Blix must have been in on the lie. We all know that's not true I hope.

It's obviously too easy to point fingers and take sides. Does truth in democracy and freedom require that we choose either Democrats or Republicans? I'm glad the discussion goes on. As far as what the majority thinks or does about impeachment now or what was previously done remains to be seen. Fighting a war is part of a process. There are battles won and lost, a journey. Is it our place to make Iraq a US occupation? The need for it remains to be seen. It's only then that will we find our destiny whether to end the war or not. We have not found the necessary leadership with the UN? It seems not. Discussion and Debate has it's purpose yet, let's not expect the required action to be proficiently done with too much delay.

To: Jesse Norman
You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder concerning Clinton. Why don't you focus on the present?

The Real Reason We're In Iraq:
An influential group of conservatives convinced President George W. Bush that it was in America's best interests to conquer Iraq as a first step toward dominating the oil-producing nations in the Middle East. There was no "exit plan" because we never intended to exit. The plan was, and is, to build military bases in Iraq and stay there forever. Our leaders see Iraq as a place to make money. So Bush & Co. have set up their friends to cash in on the rebuilding of Iraq.

Charles, who are the people? It seems like most of you think that the majority of the country wants impeachment. Maybe the majority of people YOU all know, but not the majority in the country. Accept it. Selective outrage over corruption gets nowhere because it's just that, selective. Clinton was the most corrupt of any President ever. Much more corrupt than Bush supposedly is. Clinton did so many things that people don't even remember the majority of them because the sheer number is too voluminous to take in. Clinton was said to have "a scandal a day". That was said by Jerry Brown who ran against him in 1992 for the democratic ticket. Not a republican. And that was BEFORE Clinton became President. It wasn't just about his affairs either. Why don't you all get mad at politicians on both sides who are corrupt? How many of you contacted your congressman or woman or senator and ask to at least censure LA Congressman William Jefferson who was found to have $90,000 in cold hard cash (literally) in his freezer? I reckon none of you. I contacted my representatives over this. I also contacted my representatives over the Tom Delay situation. How much outrage was there among you when Gerry Studds had sex with an underage male page and then when re-elected received a standing ovation by the democratic caucus? William Jefferson also received a standing ovation by the black congressional caucus. Where was the outrage? Democrats will say "well the people of Louisiana re-elected him. Let the process work itself out and see if he is convicted. Then he will be removed". Selective outrage means absolutely nothing because both sides have it.

I recently sent this letter to the Contra Costa Times in northern California.

In the July 28th edition of the West County Times, Representative George Miller explained the Democratic Party’s reasons for not impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney. According to Rep. Miller, the Democrats are so busy ending the war they simply don’t have time to impeach corrupt politicians.

Based on all the most recent Presidential approval polls, most citizens would disagree with Rep. Miller and the Democratic leadership. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Democrats voted for the war. Now, of course, they claim they were ignorant of the facts leading to the invasion of Iraq. I wonder if they even bothered reading any of the many books and articles suggesting that the invasion of Iraq would be a horrendous mistake and that there was no justification for it. The Democrats have failed to bring an end to an illegal war, which they promised they would do. They failed to restore our constitutional rights and they failed to bring the perpetrators of war crimes to justice.

Rather than address these pressing issues, the Democrats focus solely on who will run for president in 2008. When we listen closely to what the candidates are saying we realize they have no plan to end the war. Our sons and daughters are dying and being seriously wounded on a daily basis in what Rep. Miller admits is an unjustified war.

Impeachment is possible. Members of the legal profession and constitutional scholars have prepared the case. All the Democrats need to do is start the proceedings. Republicans will see which way the wind blows once the evidence is presented and they will be forced to act responsibly or lose future elections. So what are the Democrats afraid of? They are afraid that if Bush and Cheney were removed from office, Nancy Pelosi would become president and have to deal with the real issue: how to end the war and restore our constitutional rights. Instead, they would prefer to allow the war to continue, blame the Republicans for the quagmire in Iraq and walk into power in 2008. In the meantime, the criminals are free to continue living the good life, while our soldiers continue to die and become disabled. Our taxes will pay for this insanity while our country’s infrastructure collapses and the quality of our lives continues on a downward spiral.

The people demand accountability, impeach!

Charles T. Smith
Richmond, CA

That is my point, Jesse, there is no place for complacency whether middle ground or not. Thank you for your integrity. I just see a lot of corruption in today's world and without firm, decisive actions in leadership or elsewhere like, at least, careful consideration of impeachment and possible removal from office of the President and others we are doomed to fail. We can do it by being diplomatic...direct, firm, and kind. I do not have the gift of gab for a lot detail but, with intent as a generalist I can readily focus on the big picture.

You do not seriously think Clinton only lied about sex in the oval office do you? If Bill Clinton told you the sky was blue, I know you'd look up just to make sure, just as I would. I laid out many things Clinton did and could have listed many more, and they're undeniable. I won't get into Whitewater even though something wasn't right there, to me it's not an issue. You don't think Clinton had Janet Reno stop those investigations that looked into his dealings on different fronts? Aren't those impea