...but about an alternative to impeachment.

Has anyone else read the piece by Mark Schmitt at TPMCafe on "transitional justice?"

It really sounds good to me. Just two paragraphs:

Consider, as an alternative to impeachment, and a means of reestablishing the lines of what just isn't done, a process modeled on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in post-Apartheid South Africa. Efforts of this kind fall under the label, "transitional justice," described by the U.S. Institute of Peace as a way for "emerging democracies to reckon with the abuses of past regimes." This may be an inflammatory metaphor, and of course ours is not an emerging but a renewed democracy, and the abuses are not the massive internal human rights violations or even genocides that have characterized the "past regimes" in most of the countries that have created such commissions. But nonetheless, these past six years have been a dark, obscure and singular episode in our history, and we need to understand the truth of it so that it will not be repeated or, worse, normalized.

A post-Bush Truth Commission would have as its goal to discover as much as possible about the full range of conduct during the recent period, not only violations of law but other practices that had the effect of impeding democracy, and making recommendations about preventing them in the future, which might include everything from constitutional amendment to changes in oversight to suggestions for the press. The idea would be to find the boundaries within which democracy can work – lines which should not be crossed. The commission would not be empowered to indict anybody, but should be delegated subpoena power (this is legally complicated) along with a limited power to grant immunity to witnesses, as well as a complete commitment of cooperation from the next administration.

There's more. Of course, I would like to nominate Glenn Greenwald to be a member of such a commission.

Is it possible that the two factions here-- one that is ready to impeach now, and the other that says the timing is wrong-- could actually agree on this alternative?

If so, kudos to Mark Schmitt for coming up with such a creative solution...

http://tinyurl.com/2jkguf

You folks are starting to make me think there really is something here. I was just trying to make a joke, but now it looks more convincing. I had no idea the frequency of psychiatric reactions is so high.

A key statement from the Am. J. Psychiatry article: "The microbiology of Borrelia burgdorferi sheds light on why Lyme disease can be relapsing and remitting and why it can be refractory to normal immune surveillance and standard antibiotic regimens." This means there is an excellent chance that Bush's mental state will indeed suffer further. That thought alone should have Iran running for cover.

The claims of "complete resolution" and "no recurrence" sound like the usual Bush White House spin, as ondelette points out Froomkin has suggested. I'd take it further and suggest it's ridiculous to claim he got the tick bite while bicycling. It's much more likely he got it while clearing brush on his ranch.

Interestingly, the CDC MMWM for June 15 (http://tinyurl.com/32wa6h) summarizes the data on Lyme disease for 2003-2005. There is a map with reported cases. Although cases in the northeast prevail numerically, there are reported cases reasonably close to Crawford.

And his dad has a place in Kennebunkport, Maine, about a 4 hour drive from Old Lyme, Connecticut (probably takes a little longer on a bicycle).

Seriousness:

The objective of the selection of various nations for potential adversaries in war is not to actually win a war. Instead the objective is to create perpetual limited war, seeking new opportunities to manage war with enemies either preexisting or newly created at acceptable limits for loss of life and property. The purpose, though not the stated goal, is not to destroy the enemy, nor is it to bring about a victory. When it appeared that the occupation could conceivably control the violence in Iraq center stage was given to Iran. Bin Laden is not important, because he and his terrorists are simply too easy to defeat.

The foreign policy advisors know that the concept of perpetual limited war would not sell well to Americans who like wars to have a beginning, middle, and an end, preferably "winning" the war. Killing to continue killing is not very a very marketable idea.

Before the invasion of Iraq economists described doom and gloom scenarios largely based on the idea that the economic stimulus from the second world war had run its course, and there was nothing to take its place, resulting in a world wide depression that could last generations. Coincidentally and symbolically England made its last payment for assistance received from the U.S. during the war early in 2007, (a little over fifty-million dollars.)

In the modern era of nuclear arsenals held by ten countries, but principally the U.S., Russia, and China, the concept of another world war, total war, or a war between two of the principals would create such utter devastation to both property and life, that to engage in such a war would be suicidal. It would wreck the economies of all nations, and would require generations to recover if mankind survived the first winter without a supportive infrastructure, as the current victims of this policy are suffering in Iraq. Iraq is fast heading toward a major humanitarian disaster, but world war is no longer an acceptable stimulus for the economy.

Therefore, anyone who discusses the war in terms of winning and losing or short term goals for victory are not serious, because they do not protect the world economy from collapse.

The answer is perpetual limited war to maintain strength in the world economy. If it was not America that waged this war another country would have to step forward to continue with the plan to sustain the economy. America taking the lead has two advantages. The U.S. maintains control over who to war with and where, and it maintains its preeminence as a world power.