Moveon.org has, in democratic fashion, started an online poll to give people a chance to say whether Moveon should be moving on to impeachment, and why.  The following is how I feel, and anyone who feels the same can feel free to plagiarize it or forward it whole in Moveon's online form.

Dear MoveOn;

The present nationwide movement to impeach Cheney and Bush represents the most important turning point in the history of our democracy to date.  It has spread to states as diverse as Montana, New Mexico, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Maryland, Michigan, Texas, and Alaska, not to mention all the traditionally "blue" states.  I believe this movement can succeed if the case for impeachment of first Cheney, then Bush, is kept focused to the  bare-bones, most open-and-shut parts of the case, which would require minimum investigation, because the facts are public record and in many cases confirmed by the Bush administration itself.  To address the Democratic party's official position that "the votes aren't there," I answer that the votes are never there to begin with, they are gained as the case is made and congressmen feel pressure from their constituents.  During the drive to impeach Nixon, even strong conservative Barry Goldwater eventually changed sides.  As far as the argument that impeachment proceedings would cause a "backlash" that would imperil Democrats' chances in 2008, multiple polls and the experiences of many who live in Republican-leaning  counties across the U.S. show this to be a complete fabrication, for the benefit of congressmen too lazy or to cowardly to do their job. Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution states that the president and vice president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."  The word "shall" rather than "may" indicates impeachment was to be taken as a duty, not an option.

It is barely worth even mentioning the weak argument that impeachment would distract from the "main goal" of withdrawal from Iraq.  Since, as John Edwards has said, George Bush will never do anything he is not forced to do, the two go hand-in-hand.  Bush has already stated his willingness to see troops in Iraq for "50 years."  What other assurance does Congress need that Americans will never stop dying in Iraq as long as Bush is president?

The bare-bones, open-and-shut case for impeachment is:

-Violation of the oath of office to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, specifically the Sixth Amendment right of American citizens, in criminal matters, to be told of the charges against them, to counsel, and a to speedy and public trial by a jury of their peers.  The rights of foreign nationals may be debated, but the rights of Americans are not open to debate.  They are stated clearly in the Constitution, and "enemy combatant" precedents obviously cannot apply to a vaguely defined "war on terror" intended to have an infinite horizon.  Jose Padilla was detained and tortured for 4 1/2 years in violation of his rights, and the administration to this day claims the authority to do so to any American it accuses of terrorism.

-A corollary charge, seeking to overturn the Bill of Rights of the Constitution by the transparent device of claiming wartime powers which would last forever.

-Violation of the oath of office to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment right to freedom from search without a warrant, in the NSA warrantless surveillance scandal.  The media assists the administration in twisting the issue to be whether or not the government can spy, when in fact the government has always been authorized to spy on anyone as long as it does so within the law, with a warrant obtained before or even after the fact.  Referring to this, former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean says Bush is the only president in history who has openly admitted an "impeachable offense."

-Lying to Congress and the American people to draw the country into the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

-Giving secrets to the enemy in wartime by ordering the public identification of American intelligence agent Valerie Plame, which constitutes treason, because Plame was engaged in tracing weapons of mass destruction before they reached American shores.  

There is a long list of other possibly impeachable offenses, such as holding and torturing foreign nationals.  There are reports which have so far escaped media attention, such as the administration blowing the cover of Pakistani double agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, who in the words of a security expert, "may have led us to bin Laden himself."
"Outing of spy stuns security experts"

"Did US blow cover on Al Qaeda mole?"

One could argue that the administration has subjected the U.S. to attack by ignoring the warnings of intelligence agencies, that invading and occupying Iraq could "increase extremist recruiting," (AP)

The articles of impeachment drawn up by Dennis Kucinich summarize well the lies of the Administration in selling the Iraq War, but unfortunately also include articles of impeachment based on making threats to Iran, which is not necessary  in an already strong case for impeachment.  It may not be right, but nations have always threatened other nations, and "saber-rattling" is not prohibited in the Constitution, whereas attacking Iran without a congressional declaration of war would be.  

The crux of the strategy I recommend to MoveOn.org is to avoid controversy by narrowing the case for impeachment to what is clearly undisputed, centering on the violation of specific articles of the Constitution, on treason, and on lying to Congress.  Not only is it possible for impeachment to succeed; it is vital that it do so.  If George Bush and Dick Cheney are simply allowed to leave office, our level of tolerance for law-breaking among our highest officials will have expanded by breath-taking orders of magnitude, and will become a permanent part of our political culture.

Polls showing Congress with even lower approval ratings than Bush show that the Democratic "strategy" of inaction, i.e. letting Republicans dig their own holes filled with the bodies of American troops, is failing.  An aggressive strategy is a winning strategy for Democrats.  What makes them think Republicans will not conveniently turn anti-war in mid-2008, to blunt the issue and give back the electoral edge based on social issues they have recently had?  Most incumbents of both parties will keep their jobs, and everyone will be happy, except the thousand or so soldiers who will have died for politics in the meantime, and an Iraq changed not one iota.

Ralph Lopez
May 8th

"Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb.  These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families."  -From "The War as We Saw it"  --Op-Ed in New York Times, by seven active-duty soldiers in Iraq

Impeachment info. by state:
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/states .html

National organizations:

http://impeachbush.meetup.com

http://www.impeachthem.com

http://impeachbush.org

http://impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com

http://impeachforpeace.org

http://votetoimpeach.org

http://www.pledgetoimpeach.org