They were discussing this on talk radio the other day. According to the caller she had received a call earlier in the day from someone in the Obama camp. She inquired as to why impeachment precedings had not begun.

The answer is that the dems are afraid, after the Clinton affair, that if they launch impeachment hearings against bush, future presidents will have to constantly be on their toes to avoid any kind of impeachment talk. That impeachment will be considered for the slightest offense.

>Hmmm, in the military you are still punished (could include court-martial or time at Leavenworth) for following an unlawful order. You are not immune because you were following direct orders if the order itself is illegal. So, the same must hold true of these people. As to the person who gave the order, just another example of why President Bush should have been (and still should be) impeached. I am often amazed that it has not happened and I simply cannot fathom why not... Something must be going on that we don't know about... (we being the public whom they supposedly serve)
>
>
>
>>Harriet Miers blew off Congress today
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19725003/
>>
>>The House is no considering contempt charges.
>>
>>If there's nothing to hide, then why not testify?
>>Seems to me it only makes you look guilty to not testify.
>>
>>Just more proof that Bush thinks he's above the law.
>>
>>Arn't you glad the integrity's back in the White House?