Cross posted on Badlands Blue
In this morning's Washington Post, former Sen. George McGovern (D-SD) writes "that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president." McGovern continues:
Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.
[...]
In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq...
For good measure, McGovern adds that "the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election." Worse than Nixon and Agnew? That's pretty darn bad, but sadly, McGovern is right -- Bush and Cheney ARE worse than Nixon and Agnew, in their contempt for the U.S. constitution and their "assault on reason," as Al Gore says.
My question is this: how did the American people re-elect Bush in 2004, after it was patently obvious what a disaster he and Cheney were following the first four years? I mean, I can understand the American people being persuaded once -- in 2000 -- that Bush really was a "compassionate conservative," a "reformer with results." But the expression "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" comes to mind. And, as Dubya once said (hell, he should be impeached just for mangling the English language!), "Fool me — you can't get fooled again."