"The Bush/Cheney White House, which told the American people in 2003 that the Iraqi invasion would be a three to six week affair, now tells us that the US occupation is permanent. Forever. ...In contrast, the insurgency in Iraq continues to rage and could expand dramatically if Shi'ites were to join the Sunnis in attacks on US forces. Most American military leaders no longer believe the insurgency can be defeated. Permanent occupation means permanent insurgency.

The neoconservative Bush regime has got away with more than I thought possible, perhaps because most of Congress and the American public cannot imagine the degree of insanity that lies behind the Bush administration. ... If Americans understood the enormity of the deception behind the invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the pending attack on Iran, Bush and Cheney would be impeached and turned over to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, and AIPAC would be forced to register as a foreign agent.

The neoconservatives also believe that nuclear attack on Iran will isolate America in the world and, thereby, give the government control over the American people. The denunciations that will be hurled at Americans from every quarter will force the country to wrap itself in the flag and to treat domestic critics as foreign enemies. Not only free speech but also truth itself will disappear along with every civil liberty."

"Allowing the President unilaterally to declare individuals to be "enemy combatants" with no meaningful review process means, by definition, that the President's power to imprison people for life is unchallengeable and unreviewable. No hyperbole is needed to describe that as a core tyrannical power, one of the defining attributes of dictatorial rule. How does that, by itself, not end the debate over whether this is something that ought to be done?

It is just self-evident that vesting the President with this power will result in inevitable and widespread abuse of that power. That is why our system of government does not recognize such a thing as unchecked power generally or executive imprisonment specifically. Those who advocate unilateral presidential imprisonment power willfully ignore that issue and simply pretend (or blindly trust) that the power will only be used against The Terrorists -- exactly the assumption our entire system of government was constructed to reject.

Anyone who believes that the President should have the power to order individuals inside the U.S. imprisoned forever with no charges and no process is someone who, by definition, simply does not believe in the political system of the United States."

         What is interesting about the above quotes is what "would happen" "if" without mentioning or sufficiently imploring that such is already the case. The fact is it is the official position of the government of the United States that says all of these "terrible" things they write about as if in hindsight or as if it can be avoided, is already the law of the land and is indisputably going on, and that no one has to fear arrest or accountability on doing or having done such things on behalf or the adminstration, ever. The US openly has stated the Geneva Conventions do not apply, and that while it does not "torture" or "kidnap" people, it does "alternative interrogations" and "extraordinarily renders" people for such treatment, (and sometimes to places where they can be "legally no mincing words about it"... tortured, though it is usually conveniently out of our hands at that point ("they promised they would not "torture" them" beyond somebody's definition of the word)). It is not that the President asking for such rights, legal or not, because they are ongoing, recognized as policy with the full sanctioning of the Justice Department and the Congress, and despite some rare exceptions, even the courts.

         The "political system" of the United States, with few squabbling and ineffectual protestations considered "partisan" really has no problems with these things. And the American public and the Military are getting used to it as well, for the more such things are exposed and nothing is done to stop it, the more "legal" it becomes, rightly or wrongly. The fact is the full weight of the US government will be in trying to appeal the Al-Marri decision, and it is the official position of the acting authorities that despite whatever misgivings this or that lower courts or even the Supreme Court may have, such things will continue, have continued, and will be continued no matter what the courts throw up as roadblocks. The only possible remedy to stop any of this from continuing which is the largest self-fulfilling prophecy ever by Congress that since it cannot happen, it will not be attempted, impeachment. THAT is the tacticit approval by Congress for not even giving a hearing to the only possible remedy for an unending pattern of lawlessness at upsurping the Constitution, the Separation of Powers, and countless laws completely ongoingly disregarded openly. The courts are treading on thin ice in venturing where they know Congress fears to tread. Every branch has capitulated simultaneously because the only way to prevent what has already happened from continuing to happen is for them to act in unison against it.

         One could argue, correctly in my opinion, that Congress has feared to consider impeachment under the countless reasons to think Bush would not recognize the legitimacy of Congress even being still able to hold such hearings "in a time of war" no matter how elective a war, or that would tip his hand toward doing the unthinkable, bombing Iran. It is a Mexican Standoff all over the place. Bush not only declared Congress passing into new hands as irrelevant in the long run, but that the elections "even went forward" in the first place was a sign of how willing he was to compromise. There is nothing to stop him from using any national emergency to send Congress packing, and with his new directives on what would happen in that event, have sole jurisdiction to reconstitute the government.

         In light of this possible intimidation of Congress present or recently passed, that Congress would literally fear for their continued positions were they to "take on" the President or even the Vice-President, or inadvertently set off the very Armageddon they might seek to prevent, under such circumstances, debate and democracy would already be dead. The Congressional hearings are nice entertainment, the coverage of the would be elections if Bush's magnaminity to allow them to take place continues, and should no possible excuse from a terrorist attack to a bad hurricane make them questionably subject to revisions. Even the head of the military recently predicted that he thought civil government in the US could not withstand another 9/11. Being the one who would make that call along with the President should inspire little confidence that the military would currently "allow" impeachment hearings to take place, or not cut them short should any crisis or development occur. The Constitutional framework that existed before is effectually now dead in practice.

         What we are left with is hoping that we will be allowed another election if the Democrats can alter their positions enough to be thought by the military, and other relevant corporations, sufficiently reasonable to deal with. And of course, that no reason in the Universe, and God only knows how little that reason could be, to have the whole thing aborted should things be not sufficiently going the way Bush would wish. Toward reversing this, getting an impeachment before an excuse occurs to make it impossible, or before Bush can launch an attack to make it unthinkable and his continuing in office or appointing a successor to take his place in the event of a World War he would be complicit in starting, nothing is there anymore to stop it, or even discourage it. Up until now the consistency has been absolute, if it can be done, if others will give ground, it has been attempted.

         Time is not with anyone on this. The Democrats have rapidly lost much of their credibility to take on Bush head on, and the war will drive Bush to make increasingly, if that is possible, even more rash decisions. An attack on Iran may be imminent, or impeachment hearings will soon go forward, and baby steps will doom it. Talk is cheap, and proving a case to a brain dead public told what to believe by their TV's without a consistent increasing urgency will allow the public to again tune out, and whoever takes the initiative first wins. This is a crisis which will not yield to election year politics or news cycles. Only impeachment in one form or another can stop or slow the rush to war anymore. A President under indictment by Congress would give the military time to digest and the "possibility" however slim that war of uncontainable and unconscionable consequences would not overshadow everything else. Don't write off Lieberman's urgency in bombing Iran. It is in the cards the Democrats, if not have dealt, yet again, doth not protest enough to make a damn's worth of difference.