Just another disgruntled former employee.

Let's just wait and see how the right is going to eat him alive.

Too bad he did not voice this opinion when it counted, when he was still in the military.

So...is impeachment still off the table?

attack the messenger but not the message

yeah I get it!

same old same old.

I think Obama strongest suit is to keep emphasizing unity of the party instead of this divider we have now. And even then Bush divide the 30% from the rest of the Americans.

This emphasis on loyalty as so far into the branches of govt from the military and the intelligence agency and the supreme court. I wonder is there any dept left untouch with this loyalty clause of the Bush administration?

Gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.

Lets add that to the list of impeachable offences...

and tell Pelosi Conyers and Reid about it. and wait...and wait...and wait.

Too little, too late. Donate the money "earn" on this book to a DAV.org.

Hopefully the media will give this book the attention it deserves, even in the wake of the bombshell McClellan book.

This book came out before McClellan's and this is the first time I have discussion about it.

Wait til Bob Dole gets hold of him!

The problem with expecting the Sanchez's and McClellan's of this world to spill the beans while the beans are hot is that both the typical career military man and the typical conservative are instinctively deferential to authority. Like robots, their prime directive is to serve the master and his superior vision unquestioningly.

It's only in hindsight, once they are removed from the black hole of power, that folks like this will ever blow whistles.

rooth hussein @ 17:

Wait til Bob Dole gets hold of him!

He is composing a stern email now.

a little too late. Should have done it when in a position of power.

The right, aided by the media, will deftly attack Sanchez as a disgruntled former employee, while simultaneously using Sanchez' book to make the case that McCain must be elected because of his military experience and expertise on Iraq. All the while ignoring that McCain proposes to continue the same flawed strategies.

Re: General Sanchez-we are ...puzzled.

During the civil war, Governors so much believed in the war of agaisnt the Souths freedom were willing to borrow money agaisnt thier own capitol to pay for soldiers and arms. They might have been fighting in a round about way to free the slaves, but they didn't want the south to be able to live outside of mainstream coruption and devil worshiping.

Gee, I thought that the military swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC.

Which means, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that when Bush's neocon drums of war started beating it should have been the job of the top military to make sure that the "Shock and Awe" campaign would not be in direct contradiction to any treaties the United States may have been a signatory of...(since the Constitution clearly says that all signed treaties are the "supreme law of the land"). You know, those pesky Nuremberg treaties, the Geneva Conventions, various U.N. treaties etc., etc.

Well, gee whiz. The top military should have stood down on all illegal orders for what they blatantly were...UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But, woah is me. They did not. Now, here we are.

I'd love to interview Gen. Sanchez. Key questions? In your opinion, according to the U.S. Constitution and the UCMJ, have war crimes been committed in regard to military actions the U.S. has taken since Bush took office? And if the answer is, "yes", then in your opinion, who should be indicted?

This guy is a classic soldier.

He obeys his orders as a soldier. Then he criticizes those who gave him orders,

Have no use for Sanchez or other officers like him.

He is a classic army officer. He obeys orders unquestionably while in uniform.

Afterwards, he speaks out.

Screw Sanchez and all officers like him. Worthless.

Erroll @ 5:

Too bad he did not voice this opinion when it counted, when he was still in the military.

Do you know how he would had been attacked by O'Reilly and the like, if had opposed the war: He would had been accused of treason, and of being coward, and of hating the troops, and of being a terrorist sympathizer, etc., etc., etc. Jon Stewart said something similar to what you just said, and it was the only time that I disagreed with him...for the above mentioned reasons.

Sanchez is tied to what happend at Abu Graib.

Don't tie yourself to him.

this way to your swiftboat general...

Pericles @ 36:

Sounds like *somebody* is a little pissed that he didn't get one of those Presidential Medal of Freedom awards that Bush was giving out like Pez candies to all the various people who cluster-f#@ked the country.

But no, the right wing noise machine can't swiftboat Sanchez. Instead, they'll have to hit him with the standard attack of:

1-Whatever a weasel says doesn't count.
2-If Sanchez really thought things were that bad, he should have said so.
3-People who don't say what they think are weasels.
4-Sanchez is a weasel, therefore anything he says doesn't count.
and
5-Our fearless leader knew he was a weasel all along. That's why he didn't promote him to a full general, and that's why he didn't get a Presidential Medal of Freedom award.

Iraq is so "important" the war on terror, Bush nominates one of the greenest 3 stars we had at the time.

Got to love that.

Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.

General Sanchez you so crazy!

I thought Hillary was quick to dismiss McClellan's allegations, saying that we should focus on what the future president. That's because she, along with McCain has an "enemy recognition" problem. Our fight was with the people who attacked us on 911, not with those who didn't. To my chagrin, Obama's speech was much more discerning of the issues than my own analysis. I merely saw that Iraq and Iran had fought a war in the 1980s, were enemys, and tended to cancel themselves out. I may be slow, but it would seem to me now that the neocons knew that, and intended to attack Iran all along, since 2003. Hence any talks are appeasement. Of course, they did expect to have the ground troops available for Iran after the 6 month cakewalk war. Abu Ghraib was their reaction when the 6 month cakewalk fantasy evaporated.

It's one thing to get us into war due to ideological fantasies, but it's quite another to engage in lies to accomplish that purpose. I have to say, that I don't see the appropriate indignation over this - a strategy that let Bin Laden off the hook, spent $500B, cost 4000 troops, 10s of thousands of Iraq lives, and enhanced Iran's position in the Middle East. This lying created a treasonable like result. Meanwhile, the Republicans spent over a year on the lying of a marriage infidelity with Clinton? There is something severely wrong with our government.

You know, the door of delusional military strategies does swing both ways. Just wait til Baghdad Bob's book comes out. Here's an excerpt from:

"Who'da Thunk It? Inside The Saddam Experience"

"For weeks, I defended the Hussein administration in front of the world press. Even as tanks rolled into Baghdad behind me, I was assured by Saddam and his closest advisers that the coalition forces would never breach the mighty walls of God's city. I admit it, I ate the falafel. Looking back on it now, though my words were sincere, it's clear that our defenses were perhaps not as solid as the administration led me to believe. I want to make clear that I still like and admire Saddam, a leader of true bloodthirsty vision who was badly misled by his close advisers."

Reaction to the book has been swift.

"This is not the Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf we know," said We are puzzled," said Ba'ath party spokesman Abd al-Salam. "If Mohammed had these doubts, why didn't he just surrender to the imperialist aggressors when they entered the city? Because they never DID enter the city! We have them on the run!"

lj @ 45:

This is the start of being "the first/early" to reveal the true sins of the worst administration in the history of the Republic.

Top of my list: Pat Tillman fragging.

I've seen more realistic assessments of war in Hollywood movies and comic books than from the neoconservative crowd.

Our foreign policy was written in crayon by a 10 year old with an anger management problem, aka Bush.

The “Gross Incompetence and Dereliction of Duty” started on Sept. 11th, 2001 as far as I'm concerned.

Not known to many, but retired officers (Regular Army) cannot badmouth the president, as they are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until the moment of their death. So, the Busher could court-martial him, but won't because it would reveal stuff that the Busher would prefer not discussed.
And a secret classified trial for a general officer would be slightly embarrassing so the general gets a pass on this one.

Oh, retired Reserve officers ARE free to badmouth the president, as they are no longer subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice as of the date of their retirement.

Note: About 99% of the generals in the news are regular officers and therefore taking a chance when they knock the Busher.

Anyone recall the defense of Goering et al. at the Nuremburg trials??

Orangutan. @ 50:

The “Gross Incompetence and Dereliction of Duty” started on Sept. 11th, 2001 as far as I'm concerned.

maybe even before that when Bush ignored (the august PDF) that said Bin Laden was going to attack in the U.S.

I think Bush had many warnings before 9/11....all were ignored.

Epinnoia @ 51:

For those of you who claim that Sanchez should have spoken up while still on Active Duty, think again. Such words could have landed him in a military prison, if said while still wearing the uniform.

Submit retirement papers?

That would of taken a spine, never mind.

Well, most U.S. citizens thought that going to war with Iraq and not keeping the fight in Afghanistan was wrong. We, on these blogs, have been saying this all along. But of course, we don't have the credentials of Gen Sanchez.

In the court of Global Opinion bush is guilty of War Crimes. In my travels I hear of it often.
If I were a praying type or superstitious I'd be mumbling over beads and throwing salt over my shoulders hoping for trials to happen.

Democracy wont be able to heal unless there is some accountability.

Yet another maladministrant comes forth. Of late there seems to be a steady march. Sanchez is, like all the rest, too late. Too late especially since all the death has been done.

Did he not consider, prior to getting publicized and all, just how perverse this is? Isn't it enough that Americans and the world have had to suffer the total indignity which is this maladministration? Why should we then have to further suffer by reading of yet another change of conscience after the trigger was pulled, the bomb dropped, the Constitution shredded, the helpless abandoned? And tell us something we didn't already figure out. Of course the maladministration is incompetent. It's also corrupt. It also hates the American people. So what else is new?

Where was this alleged leader when his conscience finally caught up to him? Wiping his butt in a pentagon bathroom?

Questions... questions.

All while nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. All while the war, and the mouths of politicians who could stop it if they, too, had a conscience, drone on.

.

John Yoo says:

Clinton certainly didn’t make it easy. Same as the Bush administration. Knowing what you know now about what they had done, if they had been much more open and forthcoming coming out of the gate, it would have been better for everybody.

But I will say this: I wasn’t in favor of impeachment. I don’t think what Clinton did rose to the level of what impeachment is really for. I think if people in Congress wanted to impeach President Bush they could, not because he committed a crime but because they think he’s a bad president.

That was the phrase [“high crimes and misdemeanors”] that came from Britain, and the British used to, under that phrase, remove people just because they screwed up a war.

There are great examples. Allegedly these were the same standards of impeachments when they impeached a minister because the British suffered a setback in the war with the Dutch. It wasn’t a crime, but you were a bad leader. But it has to be something of significance to the state. Clinton, what he did didn’t seem to rise to that level.

.

IMPEACH BUSH
for
BLOWing the JOB!

.

This is just puzzling more than anything. I think it's sad that General Sanchez pretends like he was in the loop, when in reality (and he doesn't know this yet) he was just a cardboard, animated cutout that we flew over there to act General-ly.

This is not the General Sanchez that I knew.

Booosh @ 66:

This is just puzzling more than anything. I think it's sad that General Sanchez pretends like he was in the loop, when in reality (and he doesn't know this yet) he was just a cardboard, animated cutout that we flew over there to act General-ly.

This is not the General Sanchez that I knew.

I'm sure those words will be drooled out by Dana Perino tomorrow morning.

FOX is State Sponsored TV @ 67:

So what is Patraeus if Sanchez is correct about Bush/Cheney's attitude toward the military?

A tool with political aspirations?

Ur dead on, Vincennes.

Now it's time for the neocons to rev up their ad hominem offense.

Maybe General Sanchez will take the advice that an ex-friend once gave me , ' ¡ Since you hate America so much, just mail your monthly pension check back to them ! '.

Or not.

Id like to believe the Dems are concentrating on keeping Chimp in check till November.Stop him from starting another bullshit Neo Con war and installing himself as dick tater and stuff like that.They can get on his butt after inauguration when he cant pardon himself or any other gang members. Hes probably written several bullshit signing statements already exonerating himself from any crimes he didn't commit. They are in full ass covering mode now. Be interesting to see how the Rove thing plays out. Will he or wont he ? Only his 14 lawyers know for sure. I can see it all now.... standoff at the White House as Rove hides under Chimps bed to avoid Conyers. They might have to flush him out like Noriega with extremely loud music over a wall of speakers. Perhaps a little Celine Dion would do the trick.
Bush would probably declare his bedroom a sovereign nation and claim Rove has diplomatic immunity anyways.

They're giving us the ammo we need.

Sadly, the cronies wait until after their tenure to try and blow the whistle.

eight years of a Bush administration makes me think of one question.

"what if Hitler had got away with it?"

unfortunately, I think we're all going to find out.

I believe the neocons didn't listen to anybody but themselves. Their motive was and is to occupy Iraq. Their foreign policy is hardcore economic globalizaton period. The people of the middle east will not have and we know it.

harley @ 59:

Epinnoia @ 51:

For those of you who claim that Sanchez should have spoken up while still on Active Duty, think again. Such words could have landed him in a military prison, if said while still wearing the uniform.

Submit retirement papers?

That would of taken a spine, never mind.

Harley

Very well said. Or the integrity of a Lt. Ehren Watada.

The Truth Hurts @ 12:

All of this worthless Monday morning quarterbacking is unreal. Where we all these people when the wheels of war were just starting to spin??? I'll tell you....they were all blindly backing Chimpy. Tearing apart anyone who dared to question the reasons for this costly screw up.

9-11 was a terrible event. What's even worse is no one can deny that this administration has used it to further their agenda(s). Everyone was so whipped up in a patriotic frenzy few dared question our gov't.

It is very sad that it has taken seven years for the fog of the global war on terrorism to clear enough for people to finally step up a say something.

Busco has played everyone.

Got Impeachment?

El Cid @ 2:

"He did not work for us, he had no effect on policy, he was terrible at his job which of course none of us can remember, he was out of the loop, we're not sure he even exists, and if he does, if he disagreed with the policies why didn't he complain or quit? Also, we have a tape of his preacher saying crazy things."
- Entire Right Wing

naturally.

Vincennes @ 62:

Hey I don't believe that active duty military officers are allowed to criticize the President of the United States publicly. Once you retire it's a different story. So Sanchez didn't have a choice unless he wanted to get court martialed.

With all due respect...the true test of ethics, courage, and integrity is rarely found in those moments when people praise or reward you for those qualities. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a person who's only ethical and courageous when other people are praising him or her for it is in fact a largely amoral person whose only ethical principles are expediency and self-interest. In contrast, the true test of those qualities is found more often than not in those moments when staying true to them brings you no particular benefit, or even incites other people to condemn and punish you. I read a quote recently which really struck me...should the truth be subject to authority, or should authority be subject to truth? Ask people like Mohandas Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King, or Andrei Sakharov -- all of these are people who believed so strongly in the importance of what they were fighting for in that they were willing to face imprisonment in retribution for their defiance of the authorities. They all believed that authority should be subject to truth, not truth subject to authority. Granted, it's the rare person indeed who can summon that level of courage within themselves because the price that people pay for it is unquestionably draconian -- far higher than most people are willing to pay -- but it doesn't alter the fact that the world needs people like that, especially since there are times when such people are quite literally the only hope for significant change.

redsaunas @ 7:

So...is impeachment still off the table?

go ask nancy.
From what I understand she has our table packed away in a crate and locked in a vault and she has no intention of giving it up.

Right now she is a little busy twisting arms.

redsaunas @ 19:

The problem with expecting the Sanchez's and McClellan's of this world to spill the beans while the beans are hot is that both the typical career military man and the typical conservative are instinctively deferential to authority. Like robots, their prime directive is to serve the master and his superior vision unquestioningly.

It's only in hindsight, once they are removed from the black hole of power, that folks like this will ever blow whistles.

Aren't Military men subject to dishonorable discharge or imprisonment or something if they diss the CIC?

milquetoast @ 57:

Orangutan. @ 50:

The “Gross Incompetence and Dereliction of Duty” started on Sept. 11th, 2001 as far as I'm concerned.

maybe even before that when Bush ignored (the august PDF) that said Bin Laden was going to attack in the U.S.

I think Bush had many warnings before 9/11....all were ignored.

Exactly.
Supposedly there was detailed info/reports left for him, condi etc., as well as conversations from outgoing administration

Abbybwood @ 30:

Gee, I thought that the military swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC.

Which means, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that when Bush's neocon drums of war started beating it should have been the job of the top military to make sure that the "Shock and Awe" campaign would not be in direct contradiction to any treaties the United States may have been a signatory of...(since the Constitution clearly says that all signed treaties are the "supreme law of the land"). You know, those pesky Nuremberg treaties, the Geneva Conventions, various U.N. treaties etc., etc.

Well, gee whiz. The top military should have stood down on all illegal orders for what they blatantly were...UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But, woah is me. They did not. Now, here we are.

I'd love to interview Gen. Sanchez. Key questions? In your opinion, according to the U.S. Constitution and the UCMJ, have war crimes been committed in regard to military actions the U.S. has taken since Bush took office? And if the answer is, "yes", then in your opinion, who should be indicted?

Found it!
The Oath of Citizenship

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

This is the new citizen oath. I'm assuming we are just expected to know it.
Civics and Social Studies in school has gone down the toilet.

No child left behind?

Hell, how about no citizens left behind .

Col Kilgore @ 56:

lj @ 47:

"It relied instead on a neoconservative ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience": Sanchez.

Now who would They be?

Hmmmmmmm.... Project For A New American Catastrophe ?

good question though...who were those guys.. ?

HA!

the vast right wing conspiracy.
I went to that website a couple of days ago to send the link to someone who still doubts the VRWC exists. It was gone. there was nothing there.
Haven't tried again yet.
I wish I had copied it.
Maybe its out in paperback!
LOL

Sanchez on Countdown last October 12th.

rooth hussein @ 17:

Wait til Bob Dole gets hold of him!

Bob Doles got his "hand" full, what with all that viagara he's poppin' for Lizzy.

Anybody remember General Eric Shinseki? He was the pre-Iraq War Chief of Staff of the US Army. He was the guy who told everyone who would listen that while the forces to be committed to the invasion should be able to easily defeat the Iraqi Army and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime, but that thousands more "boots on the ground" would be needed to maintain some semblance of order until the Iraqis could reorgainze and reconstitute something in the way of effective internal security and police forces. This, of course, was diametrically opposed to what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Neocons belived. Predictably, General Shinseki was forced to retire... and as an unprecedented and incredibly petty retaliation, insult was added to injury when the office of the Secretary of Defense declined to even send a representative to the Chief of Staff's retirement secretary.

When faced with a situation where the civilian leadership is bound and determined to commit your troops to an idiotic and militarily unsound venture and, and determined to purge officers seen as "disloyal" to the civilian leadership's philosophy and plans - including the senior officer in your branch of the service (and indeed, one of the half-dozen most senior officers in the US military), you have only two choices.

One would be to speak up and be duly ignored and forced out of the service. This accomplishes nothing but hastening the start of those retirement checks - and abandons your troops to your replacement, who in this case would be most likely chosen on the basis of loyalty to the Administration and compliance with their philosophy rather than military competency.

The hard choice, I think, would be what guys like Sanchez did: remain loyal to the troops who look to you for leadership, and stay in - where if nothing else you will be in a position to at least minimize the damage to those troops by doing the military job that you've proven you can do well.

I think General Sanchez is to be saluted, rather than condemned. His replacement might well have been considerably less competent, even if viewed more favorably by the National Command Authorities. That is a recipe for getting even more troops killed and wounded.

It's a goddamned shame that our military had to go to war with the Commander in Chief and Secretary of Defense they had, rather than the ones they *deserved*...

Sjefke @ 105:

Anybody remember General Eric Shinseki? He was the pre-Iraq War Chief of Staff of the US Army. He was the guy who told everyone who would listen that while the forces to be committed to the invasion should be able to easily defeat the Iraqi Army and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime, but that thousands more "boots on the ground" would be needed to maintain some semblance of order until the Iraqis could reorgainze and reconstitute something in the way of effective internal security and police forces. This, of course, was diametrically opposed to what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Neocons belived. Predictably, General Shinseki was forced to retire... and as an unprecedented and incredibly petty retaliation, insult was added to injury when the office of the Secretary of Defense declined to even send a representative to the Chief of Staff's retirement secretary.

Great points! People talk about what a real hero is ("why didn't they speak up at the time?"). We gotta remember that many these book writing "traitors" were loyal Bushies (well, Scotty anyways) so the fact that they're talking at all (I'm looking at you Powell) is at least a little good news.

They're slowing knocking out the foundations of the house that PNAC built.

Epinnoia @ 51:

For those of you who claim that Sanchez should have spoken up while still on Active Duty, think again. Such words could have landed him in a military prison, if said while still wearing the uniform.

Submit retirement papers?

That would of taken a spine, never mind.

Where were you when military instructors were doling out UCMJ training? In the head (toilet), the only place where you knew exactly what you were doing? Sanchez and any other military leader, commissioned or non-commissioned, would be celebrated as heroes for standing up to war criminals such as Bush, Rumsfeld, Limberger, and others. The brig is reserved for ignorant sheep who have no spine. Try again and go to the rear of the class for your boneheaded assertion.

Sanchez is no better than Bush, when in charge he didnt have the guts to tell Bush to fuk off...he did as he was told the insipid creep. I have no respect for the likes of Sanchez, just a money making creep who didnt have the courage to speak his mind. Another murdering Bushite

Too late. Maybe. I still like it when ANYONE comes out with bad press about this administration. Better late than never.

Edwin Hussein @ 112:

Orangutan. @ 51:

The “Gross Incompetence and Dereliction of Duty” started on Sept. 11th, 2001 as far as I'm concerned.

I'd trace it back to the night George Sr. and Babs bumped uglies, spawning the anti-christ. (What a grisly scene that must have been-- eeeeew.)

it goes back to prescott and it has all been planned and hoped for by the family that supported hitler to the point that they were sanctioned by the US senate. us intel is outsourced and the gubmint just helped blackwater buy a warplane.

pretty grim picture to me.

I'LL PUT HIM IN THE LIST WITH POWELL....TRAITORS WHO COME AROUND AFTER THEIR TOUR AND COMPLAIN...

where was he when his men were getting killed for the lies he now points toward?

It's better to publich NOW... than after the election.

Four More Years with McBush???
Now is the time to air EVERYBODY's dirty laundry.

Don't worry, FOX Noise will handle this mess! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307081,00.html Funny, I was looking through long ago comments on conservative blogs and Sanchez was awesome then, even after Abu Ghraib. But the tone changed once he started speaking out.

Sanchez is a spineless coward of the lowest order.

Military types like him go on and on about "having the courage to die for your country", but when it comes time for generals to step up, they're the worst cowards of all. The really annoying thing is, a general probably wouldn't lose his life if he had the courage to do what needs to be done.

Erwin Rommel was a patriot who was still on duty, acting out of loyalty to his country and was willing to die in that act. Colin Powell had his Rommel moment in 2002 and he fucked up the chance. Instead if going off script and telling the UN that the neo-convicts' and Bush's claims were complete bullshit, Powell played the stooge (or as Harry Belafonte called him, "house boy") and did as he was told in selling the lie. He could have stopped the illegal invasion before it started and chose to profit from it instead.

If Sanchez were worth anything, he would have spoken up while on duty. He's as big a chickenhawk as any in the Whitepower House. The generals on duty now don't have to carry a bomb into 1600 to be as heroic as Rommel was, they just have to leak the truth to the public.

To any and all generals: Prove to the world that Bush and Co. are calling for mass murder at any cost, their plans for permanent occupation of the middle east and the theft of oil, and the world will forever remember and honour you.

mike @ 100:

Does that man want to be Vice President? Can he be? Because he'd be a great way to for Obama to both win crucial constituencies (Latino) and strengthen his biggest weakness... perception of not being willing to kill in the interests of national security.

He couldn't make the "prejudice problem" worse... because someone who hates Obama for his skin isn't going to suddenly love him because he's standing next to a white guy. Those people are already lost. What Obama has to do is win California and the Southwest... and convince people that he is comfortable running an empire and launching wars. Sanchez could enable both.

Whoa, Mike, that's not giving latinos much credit and perhaps deservedly so. But because this guy eats beans, has Sanchez as surname, and has brown skin, then the latinos will just line up at the voting booth to put him into office. I really would hope that Latinos en masse have more sense than that.

Mick Fowler @ 58:

Impeachment wouldn't work against the administration. Granted, Pelosi is a doormat, but there other problems specific to trying to impeach these guys. The first part of the impeachment process wouldn't be a problem; it requires a simple majority in the House to determine that the trial is warranted. But the second, trial phase of the impeachment take place in the Senate. It requires a 2/3 majority of Senators voting "guilty." Can you imagine the Republican senators like Jon Kyl putting their country ahead of their party and giving spoiled little Dubya a guilty vote? Worse yet - he could not be tried on the same charges once he had been found "not guilty." (Double Jeapordy) If my information is in error, please tell me...

I'm not familiar with the brass tacks procedures of impeachment but assuming you're correct, I still believe the process of impeachment is very important. For one, this is a country of laws. We are governed by them and believe that no one is above them. Bush has clearly demonstrated that he believes he is above them and I think (my opinion) that most of America feels on some level that he is getting away with it. Charging him at least shows that as corrupt a system as we have, there are consequences to even the president for breaking laws. It would restore the integrity of the spirit of our country as well. Secondly, whether getting impeachment proceedings through the senate would work or not, the crimes for which Bush would be charged are high crimes and misdemeanors. If he were to be found guilty of, or even through incomplete proceedings, showing publicly the evidence for coersing the country into war on false evidence, you can add murder to the list. It would demonstrate without doubt, the dangers of putting "a guy I wanna have a beer with" in the office and curtail excessive executive branch activities to prevent this kind of thing happening again. So even without proceedings continuing to their conclusion, I think a public impeachment would be very very beneficial.

The White House: "Gen. Sanchez is disgruntled. Never once did he bring up his concerns while he served in the military. We find this puzzling. This does not sound like the Ricky we knew and loved."

Sanchez, you sack of shit.
You enabled all the problems you now whine about. You could have said something when your opinion mattered, but instead you helped create the Abu Ghraib disaster (which you paid no price for) and you helped to prop up the WORST president and administration in the history of the United States.
You are a disgrace, Sanchez.
As an American, a member of the military, and a human being, you are a complete disgrace.
Go Cheney yourself.

It could be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush is the re-incarnation of the devil himself and it wouldn't change anything, the americon people would impeach him, there would still be a huge faction within the country that support him and are more ignorant of the world than ever.

This make no difference.

Well, what does the administration care about the opinion of an illegal immigrant? Unless he's got lily-white skin, no neo-con was ever going to listen to him.

How is this possible? Even the troops hate the troops!

Sparky @ 139:

Erroll @ 5:

Too bad he did not voice this opinion when it counted, when he was still in the military.

When you're actively serving you CAN'T idiot. It's called insubordination. Did your parents have any kids that WEREN'T retards?

Rosa Parks was being insubordinate. I suppose you would punish her for not moving to the back of the bus.

Just because something is a law does not mean it's right. Read my earlier post #124; a general who criticizes Bush is a patriot, not a criminal.