We Demand Impeachment

Our congressman, Jerrold Nadler has usually been supportive of progressive, human rights causes and advocated research into illnesses caused by the toxic air after 9/11. You might think he'd be at the forefront of holding the Bush administration accountable for the crimes perpetuated in America, Afghanistan, Iraq and the world, but read David Swanson's report:
Nadler Is Blocking Impeachment
http://www.democrats.com/node/15492
[...] Wednesday's meeting was handicapped, of course, because no-one says aloud what the reasons are for opposing impeachment. That Cheney and Bush have committed impeachable offenses is universally understood. But the arguments against impeaching them (other priorities,
bipartisanship, we don't have the votes, etc.) usually sound like lame cover for whatever the real reason is. I suspect the real reason is built into Nadler's plan of wasting a year in order to pass bills next year. He assumes that in 2009 there will be either a better Congress or a better president (he backs Hillary Clinton), or both.
Sadly, history says otherwise. For 230 years, the party that brings impeachment wins, and the party that fails to do so when it's called for loses. Conyers was there when the Democrats moved to impeach Nixon and then won big. He was there when they refused to impeach Reagan and then lost. And most of the current committee was there when the Republicans impeached Clinton against the will of the public for a non-impeachable offense and still won both houses of Congress and the White House.
[...] [Robert] Wexler proposed opening impeachment hearings on Cheney. Conyers committee staffer Perry Appelbaum laid out instead a schedule for non-impeachment hearings over the coming 11 months. Conyers' notion is to hold non-impeachment hearings on "the imperial presidency" and run out the clock .[...]
[...] Wednesday's meeting was handicapped, of course, because no-one says aloud what the reasons are for opposing imp eachment. That Cheney and Bush have committed impeachable offenses is universally understood. But the arguments against impeaching them (other priorities, bipartisanship, we don't have the votes, etc.) usually sound like lame cover for whatever the real reason is. I suspect the real reason is built into Nadler's plan of wasting a year in order to pass bills next year. He assumes that in 2009 there will be either a better Congress or a better president (he backs Hillary C linton), or both.
Sadly, history says otherwise. For 230 years, the party that brings impeachment wins, [my bold] and the party th at fails to do so when it's called for loses. Conyers was there when the
Democrats moved to impeach Nixon and then won big. He was there when they refused to impeach Reagan and then lost. And most of the current committee was there when the Republicans impeached Clinton against the will of the public for a non-impeachable offense and still won both houses of Co ngress and the White H ouse.

http://asknadler2impeach.org/