The Reaction 

Both the mainstream media and Washington insiders professed astonishment at the departure of Karl Rove from the White House this week. This is very curious, since no one in the political world would have been surprised if he had announced his resignation in January or February. After all, he “lost” — or rather failed this time to steal — the 2006 election for the Republicans. In that election year, the Democrats proved themselves the equals of Rove in slimeballiness, promising their liberal base to end the war (a vow they never had any intention of fulfilling), while reaching out to the “center” (that is, the moderate Right) on other issues.

So it’s not Rove’s fall that surprises people, but its timing. And actually it’s not at all surprising to us, given what the White House is now contemplating. In fact, it makes perfect sense. But we’ll get back to that later, after we briefly summarize the implications of Rove’s vile career.

The Hack as Warrior

Rove had the dubious distinction, more than any other modern public figure, of making the concept of “politics as war” literal. His conviction that liberals in general and Democrats in particular were not merely misguided or wrong, but absolutely evil motivated his every move. His scorched earth strategies against the Dems (including two stolen Presidential elections) led many of his opponents to label him a political genius. This was, of course, entirely self-serving: if you allow yourself to lose time and time again without a fight, it’s tremendously soothing to your ego to imagine that the person you deem responsible for your defeat is some kind of mastermind.

To our shame, we, too, once bought into this bogus theory. For we’re now convinced that Rove’s reputation as an Evil Genius is (as he himself has often remarked) a myth. He was evil, but not at all a genius. Instead, he was a rather ordinary, though quite clever, fascist with a knack for perceiving the stupidity of his foes and exploiting it… and then covering his tracks.

The Elections That Fell Off the Truck

When it became clear that Bush had lost Florida to Gore in 2000, Rove (and Jim Baker, who had previously served as Dubya’s daddy’s “Rove”) took the risk that they could win anyway by running out the clock with legal maneuvering… and that the Dems so disliked Gore that they would not challenge the theft. With a little help from the Supreme Court, the gamble paid off. The lesser-known story is how he and his henchman pulled off much the same trick in 2004. When Green Party Presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik challenged the Ohio vote, they and their supporters uncovered a hotbed of election scandal: intimidation and deception, tampered machines, spoiled ballots and the ridiculously partisan Republican Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, the honorary co-chair of the Bush reelection committee.

Among the most tragic revelations was the fact that the GOP mob deliberately saw to it that polling places in minority (and traditionally strongly Democratic) neighborhoods in Ohio would lack sufficient voting machines to function effectively. This was de facto Jim Crow segregation. Fewer machines meant longer lines, making it impossible for many minority voters — many of whom had jobs to get to on Election Day — to stay long enough to cast their ballot.

Just before Election Day, Kerry’s people were boasting that, after having personally contacted virtually every Democratic voter in the state, there was no way they could lose Ohio, and I believe them. But, almost as if scripted, the cowardly Kerry caved.  The candidate quickly conceded, and then refused to make any but the feeblest gestures to challenge the crime… and only under direct and relentless pressure from his betrayed supporters.

As in all such cases, Rove was somehow able to cover his ass: his campaign style was all over the Ohio fraud, but direct evidence of personal wrongdoing was lacking. However, he was the mastermind of the campaign, so if crimes were committed – even if he did not directly order them – he remains responsible. And what Rove has completely failed to perceive in the fervor of his Machiavellian machinations is that the party he so hates has by now become so nearly identical to his own that his scheming resembles nothing so much as a mad plot by Tweedledum to destroy Tweedledee.

The False Center

There’s been a curious reaction following Rove’s departure by some non-right-wing commentators to the effect that to despise Rove is somehow to become like Rove. Their bizarre conclusion is that to condemn such a hack demonstrates the same lack of civility that Rove and his supporters showed to their adversaries.

This is an excellent example of what I call “the false center” in American political discourse. There is a tendency in our political thought to distrust all extremes – even “extremes” of basic justice and honor — and cling to some safe middle ground, even if no such middle ground exists. The Founding Fathers did not flail about seeking some illusory compromise between the tyranny of a mad monarch and independence. Yet Americans crave so strongly the mellow “middle way” that it warps their ability to perceive what’s in front of their faces.

I would like to ask these commentators the following: “Did you like it when Southern bigots in the 1950s and 1960s did everything in their power to prevent blacks from exercising their rights as citizens to vote? So why can’t you see that what Rove did to black voters in Florida in 2000 and again in Ohio in 2004 was every bit as bad… no, worse, because of Rove’s closeness to the most powerful man in the land?” For in the last analysis, Rove’s crimes were not offenses against a political party, or even an ideology, but against the nation.

The Kingmaker is Dead, Long Live… Cheney?

So one would think that the departure of the man without whom Bush could never have seized the reigns of power would be cause for rejoicing for all progressives. But in fact Rove, awful as he was, represented the only effective counterforce to the real evil Emperor, Dick Cheney. For it’s been reported that, though Rove had been one of the loudest cheerleaders for the Iraq War, he strongly opposes expanding the war into Iran. This is not as odd as it sounds. He was a big risk taker, yes, but he was not suicidal. He was smart enough to see that, the morality of another war aside (and he had seldom been deterred by such considerations), the Iranians, if attacked, possess retaliatory options Saddam lacked. For example, if the U.S. or Israel bombed Iran, the mullahs could block the Strait of Hormuz, through which, according to Wikipedia, approximately 40 percent of the world’s petroleum passes, thus precipitating a world economic crisis.

Pushing this war on Bush was left to someone so drunk with power (perhaps literally) and with the desire to serve his oil industry paymasters, that he could and would defy Reason itself. And ominously, virtually the first act of this Administration after Turd Blossom’s departure was to seek to declare Iran’s Republican Guard a terrorist organization, a clear provocation on the path to war. It’s not hard to guess Bush’s “thought” processes in this matter: “If Karl couldn’t even win a stinking election for me, what good is his foreign policy advice? I’m sticking with Cheney from now on.” (So much for Bush’s legendary loyalty to his friends.)

There are only two options left now to stop a new, far more destructive war: get Congress to cut off all funds to Bush’s war machine, or toss both him and Cheney out of office. Both are long shots, and both depend upon the diligence and courage of the citizenry, not the Democratic machine. We’ll keep you posted in future messages on this blog as to what actions you, dear citizen, can take to stop the madness.

People on the Left are routinely ridiculed or even despised for displaying what their adversaries perceive as an excess of compassion. Ironically, a lot of this sneering emanates from right-wing Christians, who claim to subscribe to a faith based upon the moral imperatives of forgiveness and love. Thus, whenever we progressives advocate peace and social welfare, or – God forbid – oppose the death penalty, the Right and its media sycophants revile us as soft, weak, cowardly. Lily-livered liberals. Bleeding hearts.

But even for Lefties, empathy has its limits. There exist some institutions, some systems, some humans, for which we can honestly concede no fellow feeling. They evoke none of the sober commiseration granted to those who have tried and failed to meet some exacting ethical standard, nor the mellow philosophical relativism implied by the famous quote from Jean Renoir’s film, Rules of the Game: “everyone has his reasons.” The actions of such entities and individuals extend so far beyond the moral pale that they can turn the most enlightened among us, at least temporarily, into emotional neocons.

Such a person is President Bush… the former President Bush, that is. (To avoid confusion between George Herbert Bush and the current misleader, we will henceforth refer to the former by his middle initial, and to the latter, of course, by the initial “W.”) What prompts these reflections is a piece published in Thursday’s (8/9/07) New York Times, by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, about the dark curse blighting H’s sunset years: the long shadow of his appalling son.

In January 2001, no dad could have been prouder than was H of his newly-selected eldest boy, hanging chads be damned. As the sentimental story went, father and son even promised each other to avoid eye contact during the swearing-in, for fear that, in the elder Bush’s words, both men might be “overcome by the enormity of the moment.” (Though, as Village Voice critic Tom Carson pointed out at the time, the dictionary definition of “enormity” is “a great wickedness.”) That initial euphoria has long faded, replaced by a nightmare reality in which H is haunted literally everywhere he goes by well-meaning strangers who ever-so-tactfully skewer his unpopular son. It gives H no satisfaction, apparently, that these critiques of W are almost always prefaced by approval for his own, briefer presidency. (It seems he has never been confronted by anyone who has ever repeated the merry chant often heard at protest marches: “Hey Bush! / We know you: / Your father was a killer, too!”) Rather, such backhanded praise, according to The Times, is pure agony for the old man. But what is most astonishing about the article is what it reveals about the egotism and smallness of soul displayed by this once powerful man and his whole rotten family.

“Often,” Stolberg asserts, “he likens himself to a Little League father whose kid is having a rough game. And like the proud and angry Little League dad who cannot help but yell at the umpire, sometimes he just cannot help getting involved.” 

Little League! Now, a strong case could be made that W is the most powerful individual who has ever lived. After all, the office of the president, for the past fifty or so years, has wielded more influence – because of the wealth and prestige of the United States, as well as our stockpile of nuclear weapons – than any king or emperor has ever known, and Bush Junior’s personal power, thanks to 9/11 and his own actions, exceeds that of any previous chief executive. Yet here is this morally purblind old geezer talking Little League! George W. Bush is a man, dammit! Stealing an election (make that two elections) is not quite the same as a little kid stealing home plate. Invading a sovereign nation and then smashing it to bits through greed and incompetence, destroying hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in the process, cannot be reduced, by the most grotesque imagination, to the embarrassment of striking out with the bases loaded. 

And it’s revealing, in a sick way, that H doesn’t even compare his son to an adult athlete. It’s as if W were still the spoiled, not-so-young brat who caroused, drove drunk and otherwise humiliated his prominent parents. And the father’s indulgent (and self-indulgent) fantasy of his son as an underdog on the baseball diamond goes a long way towards explaining why, beginning with his childhood, W has never once been held accountable, in any meaningful way, for a single misdeed he’s ever done. 

The message the article sends, and was intended to send, is bizarrely schizoid. According to “the official line,” the attitude shown by “41” (as H is coyly referred to, in recognition of his numerical position among the presidents) towards his son’s administration is strictly hands-off. But the testimony of those who spoke, off the record, to Stolberg tells a very different story:

“… he has privately expressed irritation with some of his son’s aides. At times, he has urged White House officials to seek outside advice, and he has passed on his own foreign policy wisdom to the president, even as he makes a point of saying his son’s administration is not his… sometimes the ex-president would raise a foreign policy question, or suggest the White House reach out to those ‘in his circle,’ like James A. Baker, the former secretary of state…”

Since H is definitely not the kibbitzer type – he surely would not be making his opinion felt so strongly if he thought his son’s administration wasn’t going terribly wrong – we must conclude that, whatever he may say publicly, the elder Bush is in reluctant agreement with those who walk up to him and slam his son’s administration to his face. But what is really peculiar about the Times piece was the candor with which Stolberg concedes that the son, rather than submitting dutifully to his father, has been going out of his way to humiliate him:

“Tensions between aides to 41 and 43 ran especially high when Mr. Baker was co-chairman of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. When President Bush  rejected the group’s recommendations, some in the 41 camp viewed it as an outright rejection of the father. When Mr. Scowcroft spoke out against the war, some thought the father was sending a message to the son” – a message that W gleefully and spitefully ignored.

Junior’s oft-quoted statement to Bob Woodward to the effect that, when seeking inner strength, he ignores his weak, earthly father in favor of his mighty, heavenly one, is trotted out one more time by Stolberg, and she also produces the following nugget:

“The rivalry theory flared up again last year, at the christening of the Navy’s newest Nimitz aircraft carrier, the George H. W. Bush. The president joked that given the ship’s qualities – ‘she is unrelenting, she is unshakeable, she is unyielding’ – it should have been named for his mother. The line brought a laugh, but some close to the elder Mr. Bush winced at what seemed a subtle dig.”

Subtle? What’s subtle about W saying that his mother is tougher than his father (a devastasting put-down indeed, from the point-of-view of the male chauvinist Bush clan)? Such incidents are not isolated examples of W’s insensitivity, either. At every opportunity, the son has systematically rejected – indeed, smashed like a rampaging bull – the father’s ostensible legacy.

Shakespeare was fascinated by such fraught relationships among kings and princes, in which the fates of proud families dangerously intertwine with those of great nations. And the anguish, both pathetic and ludicrous, that H is enduring now has all the earmarks of a Shakespearean curse/prophecy come to pass. For the tragedy in Iraq that a horrified world is now witnessing had its prologue in the actions of none other than George Bush Senior.

In late July 1990, Saddam Hussein demanded an interview with US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, essentially requesting permission to conquer his neighbor, Kuwait. The pathologically selfish and stupid Sabah family had been making life tough for the Iraqi dictator by refusing to renegotiate the $10 billion debt Saddam owed them for their financial support in the war against Iran; the Saudis had already forgiven Iraq their debts. (Also, the Kuwaitis were busy “slant drilling,” from wells on their side of the border, into oil deposits that lay beneath Iraqi territory, in effect picking Hussein’s pocket.) With sixteen infamous words – “… but we have no opinon on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait” – Glaspie gave the green light (or so Hussein believed) to the tyrant’s plan, sealing Kuwait’s fate… and Iraq’s. On August 2, Saddam went ahead and launched his illegal and immoral invasion of Kuwait.

At first, H seemed to have no intention of responding with military force. After all, it could be argued that, prior to 8/2/90, he was the best friend Saddam Hussein had ever had, inside or outside Iraq. Whenever Congress, in one of its ethical moods, had wanted to punish Iraq for human rights violations, H had always blocked such efforts. And according to George Bush’s War, by Jean Edward Smith, soon after he got word of what had happened, he promised Jordan’s King Hussein and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak that he would say nothing publicly for forty-eight hours, in the hope that those leaders might be able to privately talk Saddam into reversing his decision.

But then H flew to a previously scheduled conference in Aspen, Colorado, and had his head turned around by the Iron Lady of Britain, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (Ironically, Bush had gone to Colorado to speak about the domestic “peace dividend” following the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe.) Thatcher was adamant that Bush needed to respond in stiff-upper-lip, Churchillian fashion to Hussein’s heinous act. After this “successful backbone transplant” (in the words of one British official), Bush publicly pronounced “this will not stand,” thereby smashing King Hussein’s and Mubarak’s backstage attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully.

Bush’s behavior throughout the buildup to Gulf War One repeated this pattern. Whenever the possibility of peace reared its ugly head, H would brutally crush it by, say, publicly comparing Saddam to Hitler, or sneering at the dictator’s intransigence and ignoring his own. Indeed, in the weeks immediately prior to the war, the prospect of a sudden and unexpected withdrawal from Kuwait by Hussein’s forces became the administration’s worst-case scenario: retreat, they believed, would leave Iraq unpunished and still strong. Bush and his cronies were definitely looking to give war a chance.

According to Desert Mirage, an important, little-known book by journalist Martin Yant, Saddam offered, for weeks before the 1991 US air assault on Iraq, the perfect face-saving deal. He would withdraw Iraqi forces from Kuwait, on the condition that this be linked to serious talks, involving the US, to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. In this way, Hussein would shore up his image as a hero to the Palestinians. And Bush would have emerged as a double peacemaker – averting a confrontation with Iraq and reviving the stalled peace process. Though H agreed with UN Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar that a solution to the Palestinian problem was necessary, he refused Saddam’s olive branch. (He also rejected a last-minute French plan for Iraqi withdrawal in exchange for an overall Mideast peace conference.) Nothing was going to stop the United States in the New World Order, which turned out to be identical to the “order” that has existed since the beginning of the world: the exercise, by the powerful, of blind force for its own sake.

The peace movement at that time argued that going to war to save the dictatorial emirate of Kuwait was not justified under any circumstances. But even if one does not accept the movement’s position and argues that Hussein’s aggression had to be opposed, it cannot possibly be claimed that H did everything possible to avert war: quite the contrary. Indeed, though conventional wisdom claims that Bush the First’s response to the “threat” of Iraq was diammetrically opposite to that of Bush the Second, it is remarkable how similar the actions of the two men were.

Though H wore the fig leaf of international support to cover his naked aggression (thereby gaining a false reputation as a leader who avoided major decisions until he received multilateral consensus), essentially the slaughter in the Gulf was, as Professor Smith rightly claims, “George Bush’s war.” From the beginning, only H’s opinion, not that of any other head of state, or of any military leader or regional expert, ever really mattered. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney strong-armed Saudi Arabia into agreeing to host American military forces on their border with Iraq, ostensibly to defend against Hussein’s (nonexistent) plans to invade that country, while lying to the media that the troops were there at the Saudis’ request. H made dirty deals with the other tyrants in the area – in Syria, Turkey and Morocco, particularly – to support his coalition, often at the expense of the human rights of the victims of those regimes (just as his son would later do with Pakistan). Finally, and again like W, when all else failed, H opened his checkbook to get other nations to knuckle under. This included a bribe to the UN, in the form of payment of a portion of the US’s long-outstanding debt to the organization. Indeed, the UN violated its own charter, and brought infamy upon itself, by green-lighting both Gulf Wars… except that the world body gave its imprimatur to Junior’s more deadly aggression after the fact, essentially washing its hands, Pontius Pilate-like, of all responsibility to the Iraqi people.

Yes, the double tragedy of the Persian Gulf Wars is truly Shakespearean in scope. The only problem is that George Herbert Bush, in his infuriating narcissism and parochialism, is utterly inadequate as a Shakespearean character. Henry IV and Henry V, as portrayed by the Bard, may not have been very nice guys, but at least they possessed self-awareness: they knew that their actions impacted upon the fate of England and the rest of Europe – they held no illusions that the world revolved around the Bolingbroke family. There is no doubt in my mind that neither H nor W has ever lost a minute of sleep, in guilt or even grief, about the US casualties of either conflict, never mind the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead. What is breaking the elder Bush’s heart is not the wreckage of a once-proud and prosperous Mideast nation or of America’s reputation in the world, but the utter destruction of the bogus Bush image: good Christian soldiers, noble warriors for peace and democracy.

So don’t cry for Pappy Bush: in the end, he deserves everything that is happening to him. And if we don’t do everything in our power to try to remove his son from office – even if the effort be futile – we will deserve everything he and Cheney do to us in the next seventeen critical months.

There are not even a hundred people protesting with me outside the Central Park West entrance to Tavern on the Green, as the Democrats drive or walk blithely by. The Dems are heading to TOTG to attend a fundraiser for Congressman Charley Rangel (see Action Alert below). We’re hoping to get the urgency of our impeachment message across. Indeed, passing motorists honk and a few passers-by (some of them, perhaps, among the fundraiser’s attendees) give us dissidents the thumbs-up. But I fear that there are not nearly enough of us.

If I were Rangel (or Hillary, who also was scheduled to attend), I would hardly be intimidated by this ragtag group. All Democratic lawmakers undoubtedly receive untold numbers of faxes and emails more or less ordering them to impeach the bums. But it’s one thing to have one’s office inundated with messages and quite another to come face-to-face with a horde of outraged constituents, all demanding Bush’s head on a platter. If there had been thousands, or even hundreds of people outside that entrance, it would have made all the difference.

And where are the students? The average age of the protesters tonight must have been at least thirty-five. The big mystery of the peace movement was and remains the relative absence of the young. (And yes, at all the big demos and rallies, I always see college and even high school students, overwhelming female, marching in pride and anger, but they are hardly leading the way, as students did in the 1960’s.) Was antiwar idealism, in the last analysis, all about the draft after all? A disturbing question.

It’s a hot evening in the park, the kind of night I love, but I can’t enjoy it. Because of Bush. Because of Cheney. Because of the brave, gallant, exciting youth movement that has yet to be born. But also because of that goddam knee…

The following two linked articles provide fascinating and terrifying insights into the psychological conditions, respectively, of POTUS Bush and VPOTUS Cheney. Although the tone of both articles is calm and subdued, the scenarios they imply suggest a real life horror movie waiting to happen. And, for both authors, the only remedy — the equivalent of driving the stake through the vampire’s heart — is (you guessed it) impeachment.

Dangers of a Cornered George Bush by Coleen Rowley

Bush and Cheney Cornered; The Need to Impeach Before Iran Attack by Bill Hare

The first piece is a very interesting collaboration between the “Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity” (VIPS) — a group that includees administration critic Ray McGovern and famed whistleblower Coleen Rowley — and the Washington-based psychiatrist and author, Dr. Justin Frank. Progressives will be very familiar with Dr. Frank as the author of the excellent  book-length psychological study, Bush on the Couch, which was published in 2004. In the intervening years, Bush’s behavior has proven Frank’s dire diagnosis of the Resident to be all-too-accurate.

In the article, Dr. Frank makes much the same case about Bush’s destructive, dangerous and frighteningly unstable mindset as he did in the book, except he uses it to attempt to predict (using the principles of applied psychoanalysis) Bush’s behavior in response to several plausible near-future scenarios. These are: a) a major Tet-like attack by insurgents upon Baghdad’s “Green Zone,” b) an Israeli air attack on Iran and c) a decision by Congress to cut off all war funds.

The second article deals with both Bush and Cheney and the effects that substance abuse (and, in Cheney’s case, food abuse) might be having on their actions. Mr. Hare, interestingly, reminds us of one of the most intriguing episodes of the 2004 campaign: the Vice-Presidential debate, when former Senator Edwards tore apart Cheney’s anti-progressive record as a Congressman, much to the VPOTUS’ evident astonishment. Mr. Hare attributes Cheney’s loss of composure on that occasion with a loss of oxygen to the brain caused by his health problems. With all due respect to Mr. Hare, I prefer to see the cause not as built-up cholesterol, but as built-up arrogance, produced by the obscene deference routinely lavished upon him by both Congress and the supine news media, who insist on seeing this extreme-right-wing political hack from Wyoming as some kind of elder statesman. No wonder that he was flabbergasted when Edwards insisted that he actually be judged on his record!

But one thing in Hare’s article cannot be argued with: the urgent need posed by his question “is it not all the more imperative to move with swift vigor toward impeachment?”

I’m posting this Action Alert for those in the New York area: 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8TH, 2007 6PM

PLEASE COME AND DEMONSTRATE FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO IMPEACH BUSH & CHENEY

AT TAVERN ON THE GREENCENTRAL PARK WEST & W. 67TH STREET

This Wednesday evening, most likely the entire NY Congressional Delegation will attend a fund-raiser birthday party for Congressman Charlie Rangel. Senator Hillary Clinton will be a “special guest”, and even national treasure Aretha Franklin will be attending.

It’s time for us to demand R-E-S-P-E-C-T from our Congressional Representatives.

Approval ratings for Congress are even lower than for Bush, yet Congress refuses to end the Iraq war funding or move forward on the Impeachment of Bush & Cheney.

Demand that our representatives represent the people and take action!

JOIN MEMBERS OF PDANY14CD AND OTHER ACTIVISTS.PLEASE COME TO TAVERN ON THE GREEN WEDNESDAY 8/8 AT 6PM.

Evan Giller evangiller@earthlink.net

Click on the following link to find out more about what you need to know if you want to help impeach the POTUS and the VPOTUS: GreensForImpeachment.

We don’t want Bush and Cheney to go away mad… we just want them to go away!

In the coming weeks, we will be providing in these pages the case for the impeachment of George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney. We would call them by their official names (President and Vice President), but they were not elected in the first place (or “re-elected” in 2004) and we see no point in giving them a dignity they’ve done nothing to deserve. (For convenience sake, we will call them POTUS (President-of-the-United-States) Bush and VPOTUS Cheney, to acknowledge the power they now wield, without legitimacy.) But our purpose is not simply to slam them, either, and anyway there are a thousand sites out there that already do that.

Our mission is to provide a resource for all those who are seeking through legal means to drive these two miscreants from office before their term expires on January 20, 2009. (This is assuming, of course, that they would voluntarily leave office on that day, should they survive politically, a big “if” indeed; I will be writing about that thorny issue later.) We will be providing a meeting place and information center for all those throughout the country and the world who are interested in impeaching these two officials, and welcome debate as to strategy and tactics for achieving this. This goal is of course deeply intertwined with stopping the current war (and preventing a new one), as well as implementing the social justice and environmental dreams that most of you share and that have been thwarted with brutal force by this nightmare administration.

But why Green? Because I am a Green Party member and the Greens are the most prominent US political party that supports impeachment. There are many individual Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans who support impeachment. But neither the GOP nor the Donkey Party has come close to officially supporting the legal removal of the criminals-in-chief. And it seems now that even John Conyers has drunk Nancy Pelosi’s Kool-Aid and has decided to take the issue “off the table” — as if either of them had the Constitutional right to simply ignore Bush’s and Cheney’s high crimes and misdemeanors.

So Green means “impeach” — and, though we will be presenting this content from a decidedly Green point-of-view, all shades and colors of political opinion are welcome to contribute, so long as you share a simple philosophy: Bush and Cheney Must Go!