I'm glad it's being discussed, but why are they deciding to impeach him this late in the game?

Yeah, that's interesting and so are the (a) the situation between Congress and Karl Rove and (b) any possible war crimes prosecution by the UN against US officials. That said, I don't think you are going to get much effort from an Obama administration on punitive actions against the present administration. I am told the focus will be on getting off to a fast start in the first 90 days and FIX, not seek retribution for the last eight years. When and if Obama gets in power (and I encourage all of you to get involved and help him), along with hopefully 60 Democratic Senators, I think you will see all Democrats scale back on this type of activity, march in step, and focus on saving this country and the planet. That might be disappointing to some of you, but there's a TON OF FIXING that needs to be done.

"this hearing is just a discussion about impeachment, and not an official hearing that could result in actual impeachment."

Goddamit. I got so excited there for a moment.

CNBC Sucks:

any possible war crimes prosecution by the UN against US officials.

Is there something specific in the works, or is this just a general reference to their war crimes?

Lilly -- impeachment can be VERY symbolica nd can go a long way in saying, "Hey, what he has done during his years as president is NOT COOL and we will not stand for it again." Late in the game or not, an official hearing or not, this is a good move, imo.

And ... I'm not a history buff, but don't we have a past president that was impeached very "late in the game" or even after his presidancy? I'll have to Google if I have time today...

I believe it's just chatter, primarily in Europe and progressive circles in the US, for now. For example, you have this:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/

As I said, if Obama wins, I think you will see less effort to punish Bush because the Democrats will be too busy fixing problems. What happens on an international front is anybody's guess.

It looks like some of the Republicans in the room don't understand what the conversation is about.

What is an impeachable offense? Whatever the House of Reps says is an impeachable offense.

And anyway, if we don't impeach Bush we could just charge them with criminal and civil charges.

It's not complicated at all. This "hearing" amounts to nothing more than posing for the cameras and saying George W. Bush is baaad!

John Conyers pooh-poohed impeachment right after the Dems took control of the congress in 2006.

Wimps.

Buddy Holly:

Maybe we listened to different parts of the hearing.

One of the issues I heard discussed was "Is GB triable for offences once he leaves office." And the answer, from the panel of experts, was yes.

Ford had to pardon Nixon in order to ensure that Nixom would not be tried. Obama probably would not pardon Bush.

They also had conversations on what is an impeachable offense. Was misleading the Congress a an impeachable offense? According to the expert witnesses, yes.

Theoretical advice on how to impeach in a partisan environment (with examples of the Nixon and Clinton impeachment used)was given.

I was only able to listen to a few hours, but there was some good stuff in there, you just had to shift through some of the grand standing.

This idea that the new administration and Congress will be too busy "fixing things" to focus "on punitive actions against the present administration" is nonsense. We have had a president/administration who over the past 7 & 1/2 years have repeatedly raped the Constitution, flouted domestic and international law, committed war crimes, ruined our standing as a nation that (sometimes) is the world’s greatest defender of human rights, betrayed his oath of office, and turned the presidency of George W. into something very much like the position that one George the third once held, and Congress has done nothing--NOTHING to rein in these abuses of power. This isn't about being punitive; this is about upholding the Constitution--upholding the ideals of democracy--upholding the rule of law. GW has set precedents that if not rebuked will, as one conservative commentator once remarked, "Will lie around like a loaded gun waiting for another president to claim and urgent need." If Obama is really concerned about fixing things, then there is no better place to start than with legal proceedings against the present incumbent. It's a simple matter of Justice, and protecting our democracy.

To Jen R.--

Re: "Late in the game or not, an official hearing or not, this is a good move, imo."

Right on!

I hope it goes further.

When they needed to stand up to Bush they didn't...I can't get too excited over this. I agree with Pelosi. There are bigger things than more division and payback. The history books will take care of Bush.

"The history books will take care of Bush."

-Posted by Lala Author Profile Page | July 28, 2008 7:50 PM

I'd rather the Hague take care of Bush... Pelosi is one reason Congress did not take care of Bush, she has used her agenda power to keep impeachment off of the table. That may be right, it may be wrong. Point blank, I think Bush is evil.

You cannot lie to send a country to war that cost over 1,000,000 and not be evil. Unfortunately being evil is not an impeachable offense.