The impeachment process effectively stalled last year when just 23 MPs signed a Commons motion. But the scale of the government’s defeat on its anti-terror legislation last week – where 49 Labour MPs rebelled – has galvanised the momentum for proceedings to be invoked.I think this news should be considered alongside the recent RAI (Italian state TV) reports which broke the story of American troops using illegal chemical weaponry on civilians in Iraq. Italian PM Berlusconi was, after Blair, Bush's closest partner. But things have changed. Berlusconi has considerable influence over RAI; either in spite of that influence or (more likely) because of it, the network broadcast horrifying material highly embarrassing to the White House -- material which could, if properly pursued, lead to war crime convictions. I took this disclosure as one sign (hardly the only one) of a Berlusconi/Bush split.
Organisers say they are expecting 200 cross-party signatures, including those of former government ministers, to force the Commons to set up a Privy Council investigation that would examine in detail the case for impeachment against Blair.
The size of the Labour revolt, allied to unified opposition benches, is said to have changed the climate inside the Commons.
If Blair wants to save himself, he should follow Berlusconi's example and place as much distance as possible between himself and Dubya. And he had better do it quick.
Here, W is unpopular. Elsewhere, he is radioactive.
5 comments:
Chances of a Bush impeacment would seem remote -- his approval ratings may be mid-30s, but there's no real outrage in the country and, unlike Britain, where people still except some minimum of truthfulness from the government, no one here is prepared to insist on a higher standard. Note also, with dismay, there's more opposition to Blair within his own party than there is to Bush among the Democrats.
What I wonder, though, is why the U.S. media, including so-called left-leaning web sites like Talking Points Memo, are completely ignoring the white phosphorous story. Had Saddam dropped this substance on invading U.S. troops, it would have been denounced a war crime, and spun as a justification for the invasion itself.
But the story may never emerge. Years after Gulf War I, it was revealed that U.S. troops had buried alive large numbers of Iraqi soldiers with earth moving equipment. The item barely made a ripple.
After all, anything "we" do is, by definition, legal, proper and American, because our motives are pure. What higher standard could anyone ask for?
Lizardheart Rice finds the violent deaths of innocent Iraqis amusing.
What a despicable creature she is.
video
It's true that impeachment looks impossible at this time. However, everything is going wrong for Bush these days. (And for us, since he is our President.) How much more horror will occur (or be exposed) before the 2006 elections? This country isn't in a holding pattern--it's rolling precipitously down the mountainside of history with busted springs and loose wheels and no brakes, with a madman at the helm. By November of 2006, Bush's polls may be in the teens. If it gets that bad, the Reps will impeach Bush themselves.
unirealist:
we should be so lucky that Bush's poll ratings sink to the twenties/teen and that the Repubs will be calling for his resignation/impeachment.
let's get real: the truth is that the folks backing Bush/Cheney will never ever give up control. They would rather have nuclear bombs destry the West Coast (California) as justification for implementing martial law and killing nearly 50 million people in the process just so they can stay in power.
They stole the first Presidential in 2000 and they stole it again in 2004 but on a larger scale (moving beyond just Florida). Why wouldn't they lay waste to the West Coast and 50 million innnocents, including myself, with San Francisco and Los Angeles as the main targets in order to keep control. Bill O'Reilly most recently refused to apologize for his statements for asking terrorists to please come and bomb San Francisco because we voted against allowing military recruiters on public school premises and also passed a ban on handguns. This doesn't mean that San Franciscans are against the military: some of us folks have plenty of blood on our hands having defended this great (what's left of it) country.
The BushCo folks and their backers are the scum of the earth who have killed, stole, lied to get to where they are and they certainly are not going to allow any existing remmant of democracy to kick them out of office.
get your passports ready and make sure you've put in that call to some distant relatives abroad in case we shift over to martial law in the first half of 2006.
It could easily happen here in the US. The lower Bush's ratings go, and calls for his impeachment the more likely martial law could become a reality.
regards,
anon from san francisco
anon 11:55, some people might think you're over the top with comments like that, but I don't.
A couple decades ago I wrote an apocalyptic novel in which the US did have a civil war, and in it SF was nuked by the federal gov't--under circumstances similar to those you said. (Not published.)
By the way, I lived in SF through my twenties--in Glen Park and the Western Addition. About ten years ago I moved the family to a very small town which is about as safe as can be found in the US, seeing what was inevitable.
Lately I have thought seriously about renewing our passports and getting ready to emigrate, again just as you suggest. Perhaps to Argentina or Nicaragua. But it isn't my decision alone.
I hope you are wrong. I fear you are right. Thanks for replying.
Post a Comment