It is not necessary to impeach British PM Tony Blair. (See below.) First, he is such an obvious nincompoop and front man, why bother? Second, under the English parliamentary system, a vote of no confidence should be sufficient to eject Blair from office. He could always be put on trial for malfeasance and official misconduct afterwards. Impeachment is an option, certainly, to hold him responsible for his actions in making common cause with Bush Jr. to invade Iraq, but not a requirement.

The form of government in Washington is another matter. Bush Jr. can do, and has done, whatever he pleases. As an imperial "war time" President, Bush Jr. considers himself above the law and free of any Congressional restraints in the realm of foreign affairs and "national security". He has said as much, and he may be right. Having been elected President, Bush Jr. has carte blanche for the duration of his term in office. This was the same attitude of war time Presidents FDR and Woodrow Wilson. There is nothing  peculiar about Bush Jr., except his inexperience and alcoholism. Like FDR and Wilson, Bush Jr. brought war upon his own country to advance his career or to advance his private agenda while in office. The wars "over there" were diversions from legitimate business at home.

Bush Jr. cannot be short-circuited until or unless he is impeached and found guilty by the U.S. Senate. There is no other option. As I have theorized before, however, Bush Jr. will absolutely not be impeached. Why? Because those who would be doing the impeaching are almost as guilty as Bush Jr. himself is of malfeasance. To expose him would mean to expose themselves and risk exposing the lobbying behind the push for war in the Middle East, going back to the 1990's.

The Democratic leaderships in both houses of Congress were complicit in launching America into a gratuitous war. They voted for it. Or, at the very least, they acquiesced in the war for perceived domestic political gain to themselves. New York Senator Hillary Clinton continues on this course today, even as the war has transmogrified into a disaster. The Democratic leaders know what happened, and Bush Jr. knows it, too. So it is a stand-off between the co-enablers and co-conspirators. The Bush Jr. White House will go its  merry way, covering its tracks, and wasting our time.

=============================================================
General calls for Blair to be impeached over Iraq

Kim Sengupta | THE INDEPENDENT [London]

10 January 2006

One of the country's most senior former military commanders has called for Tony Blair to be impeached for sending British troops to join the US -led invasion of Iraq on "false grounds". General Sir Michael Rose, who led United Nations forces in Bosnia, said the Prime Minister should not be allowed to "walk away" from misleading Parliament. General Rose, whose disquiet is believed to be shared by a number of present and past members of the military hierarchy, declared Mr Blair's actions had been "disastrous" and that he had hidden the true motive for going to war from Parliament and the public.

The criticism came in a television documentary made by Martin Bell, the former politician, "The Failure Of War", to be broadcast this week. General Rose said: "Certainly, from a soldier's perspective, there can't be any more serious decision taken by a Prime Minister than declaring a war. "And then to go to war on what turns out to be false grounds is something no one should be allowed to walk away from. The politicians should be held to account, and my own view is that Blair should be impeached. That would prevent politicians treating quite so carelessly the subject of taking a country to war." The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "General Rose is entitled to his view."