A progressive group of U.S. nuns has called on Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney because of their roles in the war in Iraq.
"The National Coalition of American Nuns is impelled by conscience to call you to act promptly to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for ... high crimes and misdemeanors," the group wrote in a letter written on behalf of its board members.
So reports The Winston-Salem Journal. File it under 'just another dull homebody'. In fact, we're thinking that magazine ad should be revived to note all the people who do favor impeachment of which the National Coalition of American Nuns is only the latest to come forward.
At exactly what point does Congress start taking notice?
Last Tuesday, US House Rep John Conyers (who attended a pre-illegal war session on the need for impeachment as well as penning a book on why Bully Boy needs to be impeached after the illegal war had started) appeared on Democracy Now! where he explained that his response to impeachment "is that we have several things to do in -- I begin this part of our conversation by indicating that I have nothing but the highest regard for Cindy Sheehan. But the question of how we orchestrate moving a congressional schedule forward of accomplishments -- we're pretty proud of what we've done in eight months after having no control over the agenda for twelve years. . . . We also are trying to make sure that we don't bring resolutions or hearings that would put the election in jeopardy. We could close down the Congress -- I have been in more impeachment hearings than anybody in the House or the Senate. And our legislative attempts to reverse so many things would come to a stop. And it is doubtful if we wouldn’t go into an election with not one, but at least two attempts to remove the top executive officers in the country, I don't think that that can happen."
There is no need for impeaching two "top executives". You go after the Bully Boy. Anything else is wasting time. (Yes, we are aware Dennis Kucinich has introduced a motion to impeach Dick Cheney.) The reality is that if Bully Boy is forced from office, you've got Cheney with a year or less (or more) in the Oval Office. (Provided the evidence from Bully Boy's impeachment did not require Cheney to step down or for impeachment proceedings to be started immediately against him.) Here's DC reality. Bully Boy's a lame duck. Cheney becoming president would be even more so. People have futures to secure, they've got jobs to line up. Think the rats are deserting now? They really would if Cheney took over. You might actually get some grown ups in government because he'd either have to go for the most obviously incompetent (and desperate for the resume listing) or else go for seasoned professionals (who are to the right of us but certainly less extreme than the current crowd). Cheney would be a lame duck only more so.
If he tried to start a war illegally? Impeach him. It won't be very difficult. He has no good will factor with the public. In fact, he's self-serving enough that, in the face of Bully Boy being impeached, he might try to sport a kinder and gentler Dr. Death in the months remaining to get a historical pass as the 'healer' who brought the country back together. (He might not, but the point is he's a lame duck and no one knows how he'd act in that situation with those limitations imposed upon him.)
John Conyers told Amy Goodman that it was just too much work but impeachment proceedings into Nixon's White House did not bring the government to a standstill. Nor did the impeachment process mean the government came to a standstill when Bill Clinton was president.
So that really just leaves elections. If the 2008 elections are to determine everything, Conyers and other Democrats might want to get wise to the anger and frustration on the part of many voters with a Congress that does nothing. The eight months Conyers is so proud of have demonstrated little to actually be proud of.
"OMG! Everyone picks on John Conyers! he is just one person!"
As Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) noted last week:
Nancy Pelosi, he [Conyers] said, "cannot prevent me from introducing an impeachment resolution."
He added: "I want you to know that I have no reticence, no reluctance, no hesitation to use the tool of impeachment . . . whenever I feel that it is appropriate."
So what's his hesitation now?
Exactly what is his hesitation? Does he not know what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors? Does he think lying a nation into an illegal war is minor?
Now there's a number of factors he could be impeached for (torture, his assault on the rule of law, go down the list) but let's just stay with Iraq because the Katha Pollitts of the world love to say they're not a "single-issue voter."
Iraq's a single issue?
You're talking about deceiving the public. You're talking about betraying democracy. You're talking about fixing intell. You're also talking about death and destruction in Iraq. Now the Kathas are never overly concerned with Iraq to begin with (they certainly haven't made the last four years about covering it) so maybe they just don't give a damn about the Iraqis killed and maimed daily? Maybe it doesn't matter to them because they're xenophobes? Or maybe coming off like a pushy high school sophomore doesn't allow a lot of time to contemplate, let alone grow the hell up.
Iraq is under assault. The US started the illegal war. We're really sorry that to the Kathas the illegal war is just a single-issue but, from where we stand, the US started the illegal war and the responsibility to end is a US responsibility. With over a million Iraqis killed, over four million turned into refugees, with diseases breaking out as a result of a lack of potable water, with the intended theft of Iraqi oil, we really don't see the illegal war as simplistically as the unable to BE HONEST Kathas.
It's past time to impeach the Bully Boy. But the Kathas think the answer to America's future is targeting "Blue Dogs" in the 2008 election. It's all about the 2008 elections for the cowards and spineless.
Is the country going to make it to the 2008 elections? That's a serious question. The US as we know it has already changed so much under the Bully Boy that it will take years to undue (especially with Democrats who are itching for some of the same powers Bully Boy created for himself).
A Congress that refuses to defend itself, let alone the people, isn't much of a Congress. A Congress that allows the Constitution to be repeatedly shredded (and, even as the minority party, the Dems mounted no real resistance to Bully Boy while they were out of power) isn't much of a Congress. And standing by after using the (laughable) excuse that they (Dems) were out of power or they would have stopped the assaults of the Bully Boy just demonstrates that they are unable to mount an opposition even when they have the votes.
It's past time to impeach.