It looks like the democrats are so mired in resonsibility for the Iraq war they dare not start to impeach Bush for starting the war without the blessing of congress or the U.N.
It is now crystal clear that the war was begun a very long time before troops moved into Iraq, and its defences were already pulverised. No wonder they reached Baghdad so quickly.
My M.P. a contender for the Tory leadership, has promised to ask the right questions on my behalf in Parliament and report back. Are the Tories willing to make an issue of it here when they backed the war so strongly.
We shall see.
Sadly it will take a lot of energy to impeach Blair. I expect he will run away long before it gets to that here.
"It only takes one member of Congress to begin an impeachment process, and Conyers is said to be considering the option. The process would certainly be revealing. Congress could subpoena Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, Gen.Tommy Franks and all of the military commanders and pilots involved with the no-fly zone bombings going back into the late 1990s. What were their orders, both given and received? In those answers might lie a case for impeachment.
But another question looms, particularly for Democrats who voted for the war and now say they were misled: Why weren't these unprovoked and unauthorized attacks investigated when they were happening, when it might have had a real impact on the Administration's drive to war? Perhaps that's why the growing grassroots campaign to use the Downing Street memo to impeach Bush can't get a hearing on Capitol Hill. A real probing of this 'smoking gun' would not be uncomfortable only for Republicans. The truth is that Bush, like President Bill Clinton before him, oversaw the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam against a sovereign country with no international or US mandate. That gun is probably too hot for either party to touch. "
