Media Channel dot org reports:

The latest National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program four years ago has claimed one casualty: CNN has postponed speculative documentary "We Were Warned — Iran Goes Nuclear."

This is all the illumination we need, thank you, to clearly see that our access to information has been taken over by the Bush administration.

In the beginning....I didn't think the fact that a candidate was female would make much difference here at kos.  But multiple, daily anti-Clinton diaries and comments have convinced me otherwise.  Hillary Clinton is the sole recipient of repetitive comments like: "I hate Hillary Clinton." "I will never vote for Clinton no matter what."   How many comments have you seen that read: I will never vote for Barak Obama?  I hate Chris Dodd?  Bill Richardson is a bitch.  

Why such venom is directed only at Senator Clinton is a phenomenon it's time to discuss.  But first, take a jump back in time with me.

Many, if not most, of us fear an imminent U.S. strike on Iran.  The current signs are ominous and we feel helpless to stop it.  But I think a case can be made that a move to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, and to impeach him now, might greatly lessen the threat of this potential  catastrophe.  

Why impeach Cheney before Bush?  The garbage that's spilling out all over the streets of  Washington these past days is Cheney's garbage, not lil' George's. It is Cheney and the neo-cons who are pushing an attack on Iran, not George. I doubt George knows where Iran is.
 
Follow me here and I'll give you my reasons.

Our Constitution's balance of power provisions have taken a huge hit under Bush: first is the amassing of unprecedented power by the executive; the second is the reduction of the legislative role to simply that of an advisory group.  

And now the administration is secretly undermining the judicial branch.

I will delete this diary if someone else has covered this.  If not, please follow me over the fence.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here (and I'm sure someone will) but isn't an implicit job description for the Office of President of the United States the responsibility to lead the country in the direction of its best interests?   As opposed to, say....fiddling around? And wouldn't the obvious role of "A Decider" (or, for Bush purists, The Decider) be to decide?  

Does anyone else find it morally reprehensible, even, perhaps, criminally negligent, for the current Commander-in-Chief to be tromping around a brush-sprouting Texas "ranch", entertaining various visitors, cowering from tornadoes with tax-payer funded Secret Service protection, and not leading or deciding a bloody thing?  

During Bush's two-month, carefree hiatus-from-responsibility (it must be carefree--he avows he doesn't even lose any sleep)  we've rather quickly managed to approach the 3000 total number of American soldiers killed in Iraq, and added how many to the countless others wounded and permanently maimed?  How many more Iraqis killed if the deaths are averaging over 400 a day?  How many of our handful of remaining allies are dead?