Question: Why was Nixon impeached?

Without going into a long explanation of the period, the personalities, the legal issues, etc., I just want a simple answer to this question. Wasn't it basically because Nixon was caught spying on the Democrats?

So, you would think that this would become a precedent for impeaching any president. However, when The Observer uncovered evidence that the National Security Agency issued a directive to increase spying operations upon the UN missions of those countries that were key to a UN resolution authorizing US intervention in Iraq, hardly anyone in the US seems to have noticed or care.

You would think this was front page stuff - the ticket for a young journalist to become another Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein. At the least, those foreign missions directly mentioned in the leaked memorandum (Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea, and Pakistan) should be yelling foul. At this moment, in fact, there should be a motion put forward in the UN on removing the permanent membership status of the US. But even our republicanized Democratic Party has not made a peep.

It would seem that this is just business as usual. The fact that the US government has always bribed and threatened through financial and diplomatic means, or just outright attacked nations in order to have its way has been going unnoticed for some time now in the US press. The reason being that such behavior on the part of our government is apparently taken for granted and even condoned. God forbid any other country should be caught however. Spying by the United States has also been assumed by the UN missions.

Nonetheless, this document shows clear evidence of intent.

As if that were not enough, now George W. has rode roughshod over the UN and all democratic procedures thereof to pursue an invasion of a foreign nation in complete violation of universally recognized law. George W. Bush is criminally contempt and should be prosecuted under full penalty of law. All representatives supporting Bush, or failing to mount any opposition or, at least, resign in disgust should also be charged for complicity.

So, why not begin by impeaching President-Select Bush?

Thinking about it, however, maybe 'mums the word' is the best approach, for if we impeach Bush, then Cheney would be President. Although Bush is dangerous because he so dumb and clumsy, Cheney is dangerous for the exact opposite reason: too smart and clever.

Maybe we could impeach the entire Bush administration. As peoples of the United States, let's file suit against the entire administration and government (for the Democrats have failed to provide any opposition to this administration, and what little opposition we have seen out of them has only been the result of us kicking them in the ass, being that little gadfly to remind them whom they are supposed to serve). Let's sue them not just for a memorandum expressing intent to spy upon other nations, but for the physical, psychological, and moral damages this administration has brought upon each and every resident of these United States; for endangering the lives of every person who carries a United States passport; for lying to us each and every day; and for murder of thousands of Afghanis and its intent to annihilate Iraqis; for taking away our rights and freedoms; for poisoning us every additional day since they nixed the Kyoto Protocols; and just for embarrassing the hell out of us to the rest of the world.

The Bush administration bemoaned lest there were but one bullet for Sadam Hussein. As vicious a tyrant Sadam Hussein may be, the greatest threat to the world that I have lived to see is the current President of the United States. I personally bemoan lest there were but a bullet..., or better, a cell like that for Hannibal Lecter, where we could lock this maniacal, cannibalistic mass-murderer away.

Curtis Vaughan