"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

I would be very interested to hear from legal and poltical experts if the recent revelations about President Bush's actitvies fall into the last of the three categories established by our Founding Fathers. Lying to the American people about evidence for going to war, grabbing citizens off the street and locking them up for years without trial (Edgar Padilla), and endorsing torture as standard military practice (Abu Gharib et. al.) have not seemed to light a fire of anger comparable to having sex with an intern, but this latest discovery is beyond the pale.

Do we live in a democracy or a plutocracy? Is the war on terror worth scrapping the Constitution? How many more of these stories are going to come out before someone in Washington decides to do something about it?

I think Goldberg's premise, that while there is plenty of evidence to impeach, there is little will and therefore it won't happen, is premature. The facts of the case are beyond question. Even conservative scholars agree that Bush broke the law. The fact that this story broke so late in the year, when many people are on vacation and/or focusing on other things besides White House politics, has lessened the impact of this story somewhat. Even so, the reaction to it has still been tremendous.

A big problem for Bush is that mid-term elections are coming up. I would hate to be a Republican Congressperson up for re-election who has to explain to voters why Bush's actions do not warrant impeachment. If I were a Democrat running for office, a pledge to push for a trial might be just the thing that gets the vote out. As more facts are revealed next year, a Democratic majority might not be needed.

And I don't buy the Impeachment Fatigue argument. The Repbulicans and their Contract on America worked overtime to get Clinton. To let far more serious crimes slide would be the height of irresponsibility.

I would hate to see military service be a requirement for running for President. Not everyone is cut out to be a soldier (many people can't qualify to get into the service anyway), and the big problems of our time to not necessarily need a militaristic mentality to solve them.

Instead of mandating military service, why not make every Presidential candidate pass an IQ, emotional intellegence, and/or general knowledge test? One of the traits the greatest Presidents of our time (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Clinton) had in common was they were incredibly smart and talented people, regardless of their military service record. If you want to exclude people from the democratic process, you might as well exclude them in a way that helps ensure someone with brains takes office.

I am a lifelong liberal. I have voted Democratic in every Presidential election I have participated in. I think it would be fantasitc if the U.S. had a female President.

I don't think Hillary Clinton should be that person.

While I have never met her in person, from what I can tell she is abrasive, arrogant, calculating, and cold. After six years of Dick Cheney, I personally cannot handle another zero-charisma political ogre running the country.

She says she's a Democrat, but constantly votes with the Republican herd on key issues, like the Iraq war. I wish she and Lieberman would just switch parties and make it official.

I also question her ability to make decisions and govern. Other than be the wife of Bill Clinton, what exactly has she done that merits becoming President? As far as I can tell, Hillary has name recognition and fawning, lazy media "professionals" following her around, and that's about it.

Also, I've had enough of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton era in this country. The Presidency is becoming an inherited position, passed down to sons and spouses. The idea of a nation this big, diverse and powerful being run for 20+ years by two families is ridiculous and undemocratic.

After the '06 midterms, hopefully we can start the process of cleaning up the historic cluster-f**k that is our national government by impeaching Bush (although the way the Democrats have bent themselves over for the NeoCon cabal since '01, I'm not holding my breath). But if we want real change in '08, we need to look beyond the Washington Beltway, past the pundits and commercial hype, and get off the B-C-B-C merry-go-round.

I don't have any scientific God exists. Personally, I don't know if God exists or not. I'm asking YOU to present YOU'RE evidence that God does not exist, as you said loud and clear in your earlier post. So prove it. It's really hard to prove a negative, so your evidence must be really solid.

I'm also still waiting to hear your evidence about prayer and sports. Again, you have to prove negatives, but I'm looking forward to these explanations as well.

Fundamentalist xtains and fundamentalist atheists really do have a lot in common. They both are convinced they know what it's all about, and neither of them can prove it.