My only question is if Impeachment proceedings are inititated against Bush, is it also possible to include Cheney? I just don't know. I've never heard of Impeachment proceedings against a Vice-President, but I can't think of any reason why it would be a problem.

Not only was Cheney knee deep in lying to the American people and Congress, he was probably more directly involved in it than Bush. Cheney was the one who actually visited the Pentagon to personally check on the intelligence.

Can anyone tell me who would become President for Bush's last year in office if Bush and Cheney were both Impeached by a Democratic House and Bush and Cheney were both removed from office by an affirmative vote in the Senate?

Let's face it. It will take decades to get depositions for all the crimes Bush has committed. Running an impeachment investigation all the way through the elections cycle will still only scratch the surface.

If the Dems were to take at least one House of Congress in 2007, it would be because the GOP was seen as not capable of solving the very real problems facing the country.  What better way to convince voters that the Dems aren't either than to begin impeachment proceedings?

It would really take both Houses to make it work.  But if we have both Houses, why go down this road?  WHY NOT JUST GOVERN?  Being partisan and out for revenge and getting goodies to make us feel good is the Republican Way, not the Democratic Way.  The Democratic Way is to GOVERN, for chrissakes.  Why would we want to follow them into oblivion?

Peace out.

In addition, "Impeachment" is too narrow; it only applies to Bush. "Accountability", "Resposibility", or, if we want to get Biblical, "Reckoning" may be better words, because they can also apply to the yes-men in Congress.

We need to find an umbrella for all of the following abuses:

Tribal Gaming & Fundraising
Implicates Tom DeLay, Cong. Bob Ney (House Administration Committe Chair, Cong. Doc Hastings (House Ethics Chair), Ralph Reed (Former Christian Coalition Leader and current canditate for Lt. Governor of Georgia) and Grover Norquist (anti-tax crusader and supporter of Gingrich Revolution)

Profiting From Positon
Cong. Randy Duke Cunningham, made $700,000 of a real estate deal with a military contrator who was simultaneouly lending him a yacht to live on (all while lobbying his committee)

Abuse & Lack of Values
Cong Sherwood, currently being sued for $5.5 million by his mistress for allegely attempting to choke and punch her.  The Congressman has not yet divorced his wife.

and

you name it
Bush

What is the best way to describe all of this, and what is the best way to describe our alternative?

I think "Betrayal" is the key word here.  All of these amount to a betrayal of of American values of family and fairness,  trust, their oaths of office, and the rule of law.

Most importanty, it is a pattern of betrayal of their own supporters, who believed they were electing honest populists. This is key, because one of our biggest mistakes has been to mock Bush supporters, which made them circle their wagons,  instead of pointing out how Bush and his allies have broken almost every promise they made, even to the people who voted for them.

What do we offer? Suggestions:

 Effective and Accountable Government.
Leaders who mean what they say.
Real Protection from threats abroad, and at home,  including disease, industrial poison and corrupt government.
An invitation to participation and prosperity.  

(I got many of these ideas from George Lakoff's book, "Don't Think of an Elephant".  I keep mentioning him for three reasons: 1) he outlines these ideas much better than I do, 2)to give credit where credit is due, and 3) in hopes every one will by his book and check out the Rockridge Institute: www.rockridgeinstitute.org )

What happens when all these Nixon people's kids start running for office?

1,700 U.S. soldiers dead, billions of US$$ wasted, the economic fallout from the war has not hit yet --but it will and it will hurt badly.  Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, artifacts forever destroyed and vanished, an entire country (not just Fallujah) denigrated and demolished over lies and coverups.

I think impeachment is too good for him.

Unless you want to go after them both.

Sherwood has apologized to his family and constituents for causing "pain and embarrassment" but denied the assault allegations. Republicans who thought a president having sex with an intern was an impeachable offense have rallied round.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-carlson30jun30,0,3277127.column

Bring Bush to the Hague as soon as possible.

Chimpeachment? That will not do anything.

I call for an economic revolt.

Join the revolution

hit Republican contributors in their wallets.

http://www.boycott-republicans.com

Let's not put the cart before the horse. Don't forget that a long investigation by Starr preceded the Clinton impeachment.

What we need is along, detailed investigation, on several fronts, by several congressional commitees. What is exposed wil be as harmful as an impeachment. If, after this, sentiment in the country is so riled that impeachment gains widespread support, then impeach, even if he has six months left in his term.

Let's just leave GWB's rotting corpse on display for the last month or two of his term, and let the people reflect on what has happened to their country.  Then let them go vote.

The GOP and their media experts under
Rove thought they could arrest the freefall
in bush's popularity index with this
made-for-tv event.

But they were wrong. The blogosphere rules.

Should we govern, rather than attack the GOP? Absolutely! In a moral-imperative sense.  But short of having (1) the Presidency, (2) a fillibuster-proof Senate majority, and (3) enough of a House majority to make defection a non-issue, this is an absolutely moot point.  The GOP has turned this into an era of all-out war.  We did not choose this, but it is reality.  The only way to end this reality is beat the living tar out of them. Then, and only then can we get back to the sort of politics that Democrats believe in--the politics of governing in the public interest.

In a fine, fine article, "War or Impeachment" at Consortiumnews.com, Robert Parry--the journalist who broke the Iran/Contra Affair--writes:

That's a pretty damn compelling argument for me.  After all, the first order of business in governing properly will have to be to repeal 99%+ of everything the Republicans have done.  And how better to lay the groundwork for that than to thoroughly expose the lies and corruption that go to the very heart of everything they stand for?

i say go after bush.  Cheney is very unpopular (except among the extreme, extreme right) in questionable health and would be
the lamest of chickenhawks.

1. Bush has met all of the standards for impeachment - he not only lied to Congress, he manufactured evidence to bring us into a war that has irrevocably damaged our image, our finances, our military, and, to a large extent, the American people's faith in their government.

2. If we don't impeach Bush for such grievous acts of corruption and malfeasance, then that lowers the standard for all future presidents, and by interpolation, makes such Orwellian tactics acceptable. Very simply put, all a future President has to do to justify this sort of illegal action is look back at history, and say to themselves, "Well, Bush got away with it".

An effective government and healthy society is founded on the concept of justice applied unilaterally to all citizens, regardless of the particular power politics or issues in play. It's important to recognize that at this stage of the game, it's not about beating Republicans - for the immediate future, they've won.

The battle now is to preserve the institutions that have protected our country from tyranny since it's inception. We can afford to lose an impeachment battle, but we cannot afford a refusal to fight it.