FAILURE IN AFGHANISTAN... ANOTHER REASON TO IMPEACH BUSH?

There weren't many Americans-- anywhere on the political spectrum-- who opposed Bush's post-9/11 attack on Afghanistan. I was one of the few but I was primarily opposed because I knew Bush was a weak and incompetent bungler who would lose-- and probably lose disastrously. Unlike Bush, I've spent a good deal of time in Afghanistan, in the 60s and 70s, and unlike Bush I've read a lot of Afghan history. And unlike Bush, I knew Bush would be no match for the Afghanis. Any other president and I would have been for it. This one? I imagined the worst from the first day.

All week I've been reading bits and pieces about Italians and Australians being killed, Afghan policemen being beheaded and the Taliban approaching Kabul. Yesterday I read that the Taliban now controls half the country. Thursday's Guardian painted a pretty bleak picture, with 54% of the country back in Taliban hands, despite the billions of dollars Bush and the coalition of the drilling have spent there.

Despite tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid poured into the country, the insurgents, driven out by the American invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries," the Senlis Council says in a report released yesterday.

On the basis of what it calls exclusive research, it warns that the insurgency is also exercising a "significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change."

It says the territory controlled by the Taliban has increased and the frontline is getting closer to Kabul-- a warning echoed by the UN which says more and more of the country is becoming a "no go" area for western aid and development workers.

The council goes as far as to state: "It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when... and in what form. The oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever and it is incumbent upon the international community to implement a new strategic paradigm before time runs out."

This morning's Washington Post reports that even the Bush Regime has been forced to admit their strategic goals are largely unmet. "The evaluation this month by the National Security Council followed an in-depth review in late 2006 that laid out a series of projected improvements for this year, including progress in security, governance and the economy. But the latest assessment concluded that only "the kinetic piece"-- individual battles against Taliban fighters-- has shown substantial progress, while improvements in the other areas continue to lag, a senior administration official said." The military talks about all the tactical battles of little or no consequence they win while intelligence officials say a strategic defeat, of great consequence, is looming. Momentum is on the side of the Taliban everywhere in the country. And instability in Pakistan isn't making anything look brighter-- at least not for the Bush Regime policies.

In Washington, Afghanistan policy has often seemed to be on the back burner since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Republican presidential candidates rarely discuss it, while Democrats generally bring it up to criticize the administration, saying officials are paying too much attention to Iraq at the expense of a "forgotten" war.

President Bush seldom mentions Afghanistan. In White House remarks last month asking Congress for an additional $200 billion for both wars, he noted that "our troops, NATO allies and Afghan forces are making gains against the Taliban," then offered an extensive recounting of progress in Iraq.

The picture on the right comes from an editorial in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Impeachment: If Not Now, When? I hope Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer read it. The two of them are preventing a constitutional impeachment investigation from proceeding. I honestly believe they should both be removed. Our country is in grave danger and Pelosi and Hoyer are preventing the only constitutional solution we have to protect ourselves.

After six years of state of emergency, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, continual war and occupations, our Constitution is deeply in crisis. Americans are in danger of losing our system of government and civil rights if they do not roll back the Bush administration's assault on the rule of law.

Allowing Cheney and George W. Bush to finish their terms without being impeached means future presidents are free to copy their lawless behavior. Of course many important issues deserve the attention of Congress. But the Constitution is the foundation of our democracy, not just an issue. Without the Constitution, we have nothing.

Polls show that 74 percent of Democrats and the majority of American adults support impeaching Cheney. "Never in our history have the high crimes and misdemeanors been so flagrant, and the people of our country know it," writes local author Richard Behan.

According to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, "Impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran.

"The most conservative principle of the Founding Fathers was distrust of unchecked power. Centuries of experience substantiated that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Constitution embraced a separation of powers to keep the legislative, executive and judicial branches in equilibrium," Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said in the October 2006 edition of Washington Monthly.

Pelosi and the congressional Democrats she leads have been a dismal failure, barely better than the criminal and contemptible Republicans they replaced.