Automated Radio Archiving Test

David Paul Brown

A poll done by the American Research Group on July 6 shows some startling numbers.

Question: "Do you favor the U.S. House of Representatives beginning impeachment hearings against President Bush?"

Answer: All adults - 45 percent, Democrats - 69 percent, Republicans - 13 percent, and an amazing 50 percent from Independents.

As to impeaching Vice President Cheney, the results are even more stark. A - 54 percent, D - 76 percent, R - 17 percent, and I - 51 percent.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have said impeachment won't be pursued. Politically they may be smart not to pursue it. And some would argue for the good of the country, it's better to let it go.

There is another argument however that says ultimately, it's not about Bush or Cheney. It's not about political parties.

That's the sexy, newsworthy side of it alright.

But the real issue is our Constitution being ignored or sullied by those who consider obeying the law only when it suits them.

I can see both arguments have merit, but the problem begs the question enshrined in our history. It's one that delineates us from many other countries, even some who would call themselves democracies. Are we a country of men or laws?

It's virtually not reported in the mainstream press, but there have been marches in the streets of many cities in the U.S. demanding impeachment. There is a group of constitutional scholars and lawyers touring the country for the last year, debating the issue. About 1,500 people marched in front of Bush's father's house in Maine two weekends ago, when Bush was hosting Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Their placards read "Impeach Bush and Cheney."

People are finally waking up to what's being done to this country.

This movement has been growing and has some momentum. We now have to ask, do the Democrats have the guts to pursue it?

Probably not.

Again, they may be right that it may hurt them in the '08 presidential election and perhaps in their own races. And yes it would admittedly be distracting and tough on the country.

But is there a point at which the Democrats should say, "Enough is enough," or not?

***

Several Republican senators have been speaking to Bush's handling of the war in Iraq in the last few months.

It's coming to a head now, with Senator Dick Lugar last week telling the president we can't wait until September for a report from General Petreaus. We need a change immediately.

Why does Lugar perhaps have more clout, and bona fide sway with others? Because he's respected by both parties as honest, competent and measured in his approach.

He's not vindictive, nor is he a showboat.

Along with Richard Lugar, Republican Senators Gordon Smith, John Warner, George Voinivich, Norm Coleman, Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, John Sununu and Lindsay Graham have all voiced deep concerns about Bush's policy.

Are they really concerned, or just hearing so many negative comments from their constituents that they fear being defeated in their next election? I don't know, but either way the GOP defection has begun.

***

Once more, the White House has claimed executive privilege in denying congressional testimony as to the case involving the fired U.S. attorneys.

White House lawyer Fred Fielding, has instructed White House aides Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor not to testify.

Congress therefore may seek criminal contempt citations. This might become a protracted constitutional battle.

Monday, MSNBC reported that the president may now let Harriett Miers, Sara Taylor and others speak, albeit with several caveats.

They will not speak to Congress as a body or with cameras.

They will only speak in a closed, more intimate setting with fewer congressmen (women), only if their testimony isn't recorded in a written transcript and not under oath. When Congress asked for materials from Fielding to support President Bush's claim of executive privilege, Fielding refused.

I'd laugh at the blatant absurdity of their position if it weren't so bloody tragic. All this reminded me of a quote I found in the New York Times, Oct. 2004, by author Ron Suskind.

A senior aide alledgely to President Bush said this to Suskind:

"Guys like me were in what we call the reality based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to study what we do."

Can you even fathom that kind of hubris, much less detachment from reality?

That's the neo-con vision that's been running your country for the last six and a half years.

Frightening eh?

***

David Paul Brown is a Paradise resident who loves politics.

[[http://www.paradisepost.com/columns/ci_6352436|Source]]