This entry was posted
on Wednesday, September 6th, 2006 at 7:05 pm and is filed under .
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
He should but he won’t. And Chaney as President? I mean officially? No its a great idea but our system won’t permit it since I can’t see any GOP senators going for conviction and you need some of them.
For what it’s worth guys, even Kos has said he’d rather have GWB remain as Prez than let Dick have the office.
And whether you liked what happened in 1999 or not… Clinton’s impeachment proceedings more or less showed up the whole undertaking as rather pointless, if you don’t have the Senate behind the movement.
As you know I am not a Democrat, but two months before an important election is this what liberals should be focusing on? I thought they wanted to take back the House and the Senate. Do that, and then you can start talking about impeachment if you want to–not that I want to, for the very good reasons given above.
I dislike the idea on priniple; that is, we ellected (sort of) a simpleton President, told him he was some kind of God after 9-11 ( because, well, he was President), and did nothing for months but blabber on T.V. about “new rules” and “no red tape.” What sort of “gotcha” game dictates we should now humiliate him for the inevitable results?
However, Reg, there is the little matter of legality, as we cannonball down the slippery slope towards the imperial presidency. The
tit for tat progressive might argue that the groundwork for all this was laid during Clintontime. Perhaps, but I sure heard a lot of sqwuaking about the comparitivly minor setbacks to civil liberties of the Clinton years from parites now pin drop silent on Bush
wiping his ass with the constitution. That would seem to be on of John Dean’s valid points.
Make no mistake. Dean wrote that when Bush admitted that he had authorised warrantless wiretaps, among other things, he had admitted to an impeachable offense. If the the question is should he be Impeached the answer is Yes. Will he be? Course not!
“However, Reg, there is the little matter of legality”
I’m operating on the assumption that doesn’t matter anymore in the Bush Era. It’s what you can get away with.
Unfortunately, we can’t “get away with” impeachment.
I’m for anything anyone does to try to educate the public to what’s gone wrong, etc. But I’m of the opinion that framing it in impeachment isn’t the best way to make the necessary points. But I could be way wrong. It just strikes me, at this point, as one more camp on the road to Crawford peopled by usual suspects whose 15 minutes are over.
Reg you are right but what does that say about us? I’ve been thinking lately about the so-called “World’s greates Democracy”. In Mexico millions take to the street to denounce a fixed vote. In Lebanon crowds toppled a government in the “Cedar Revolution” and the same occured in Ukraine and Milosovich ended up in the Hague after Sebs had had enough and refused to accept his “Reelection”. Remember Cory Aquino? People Power?
But here we sit by while an election was stolen in 2000. And, despite evidence, not a murmer in 2004. And Gary Sick and Gary Webb faced ridicule when they told of hanky panky in 1980 with the Reaganistas playing footsie with the Mullahs in Iran and in 1996 when the same people were accused of getting in bed in drug dealers in order to illegally try to overthrow a Central American Government.
No, it is true. Bush will never be impeached. And, unlike Pinochet, will never have to answer for his crimes. And they are crimes. And I don’t know Reg, but when something so obvious as following the law and holding people accountable becomes a laughing matter then I get pretty disgusted. Let’s all go to the TV and watch SURVIVOR or see who will confess to JonBenet next. Panem et Circus indeed!
So, in 2011 (if man is still alive), and it turns out the President owns a string of suberranean brothals in Idaho, we must again do nothing because the president of the Bush years insists(even when the bar for had impeachment had just been not so much lowered as thrown on the floor) that the President can not only do as he pleases but make up the law as he goes along. The genie will have shattered the bottle.
Yet the practical implications of ousting Bush are truely duanting; even if I reject what your saying about viewing this presidency as an aberration. That’s not 15 minutes, Reg, it’s two more long years. George Will can tisk tisk till his tisker is broke, these people do not give a f@ck.
So hearings, lots of hearings. But if we are to retain one shread of decency as a culture, Reg, I think you are bound to support me in the following:
September 6th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
He should but he won’t. And Chaney as President? I mean officially? No its a great idea but our system won’t permit it since I can’t see any GOP senators going for conviction and you need some of them.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
If I recall correctly, Nixon used to refer to Agnew as his assassination insurance.
Cheney is definitely impeachment insurance.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
For what it’s worth guys, even Kos has said he’d rather have GWB remain as Prez than let Dick have the office.
And whether you liked what happened in 1999 or not… Clinton’s impeachment proceedings more or less showed up the whole undertaking as rather pointless, if you don’t have the Senate behind the movement.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
The Nation is serving up a dish of cold leftovers…and not the good kind.
My suggestion for the next one is “Should Karl Rove Commit Hari Kari?” How about “Should Dick Cheney Be Run Over With a Mack Truck?” All good ideas.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Reg.. Im staying out of this one. Ive made views on impeachment clear.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
As you know I am not a Democrat, but two months before an important election is this what liberals should be focusing on? I thought they wanted to take back the House and the Senate. Do that, and then you can start talking about impeachment if you want to–not that I want to, for the very good reasons given above.
September 7th, 2006 at 9:02 am
I dislike the idea on priniple; that is, we ellected (sort of) a simpleton President, told him he was some kind of God after 9-11 ( because, well, he was President), and did nothing for months but blabber on T.V. about “new rules” and “no red tape.” What sort of “gotcha” game dictates we should now humiliate him for the inevitable results?
However, Reg, there is the little matter of legality, as we cannonball down the slippery slope towards the imperial presidency. The
tit for tat progressive might argue that the groundwork for all this was laid during Clintontime. Perhaps, but I sure heard a lot of sqwuaking about the comparitivly minor setbacks to civil liberties of the Clinton years from parites now pin drop silent on Bush
wiping his ass with the constitution. That would seem to be on of John Dean’s valid points.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Make no mistake. Dean wrote that when Bush admitted that he had authorised warrantless wiretaps, among other things, he had admitted to an impeachable offense. If the the question is should he be Impeached the answer is Yes. Will he be? Course not!
September 7th, 2006 at 10:58 am
“However, Reg, there is the little matter of legality”
I’m operating on the assumption that doesn’t matter anymore in the Bush Era. It’s what you can get away with.
Unfortunately, we can’t “get away with” impeachment.
I’m for anything anyone does to try to educate the public to what’s gone wrong, etc. But I’m of the opinion that framing it in impeachment isn’t the best way to make the necessary points. But I could be way wrong. It just strikes me, at this point, as one more camp on the road to Crawford peopled by usual suspects whose 15 minutes are over.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Reg, you’re rockin’
September 7th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Reg you are right but what does that say about us? I’ve been thinking lately about the so-called “World’s greates Democracy”. In Mexico millions take to the street to denounce a fixed vote. In Lebanon crowds toppled a government in the “Cedar Revolution” and the same occured in Ukraine and Milosovich ended up in the Hague after Sebs had had enough and refused to accept his “Reelection”. Remember Cory Aquino? People Power?
But here we sit by while an election was stolen in 2000. And, despite evidence, not a murmer in 2004. And Gary Sick and Gary Webb faced ridicule when they told of hanky panky in 1980 with the Reaganistas playing footsie with the Mullahs in Iran and in 1996 when the same people were accused of getting in bed in drug dealers in order to illegally try to overthrow a Central American Government.
No, it is true. Bush will never be impeached. And, unlike Pinochet, will never have to answer for his crimes. And they are crimes. And I don’t know Reg, but when something so obvious as following the law and holding people accountable becomes a laughing matter then I get pretty disgusted. Let’s all go to the TV and watch SURVIVOR or see who will confess to JonBenet next. Panem et Circus indeed!
September 7th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
You’re right too. Except for the part about watching SURVIVOR…
September 7th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
So, in 2011 (if man is still alive), and it turns out the President owns a string of suberranean brothals in Idaho, we must again do nothing because the president of the Bush years insists(even when the bar for had impeachment had just been not so much lowered as thrown on the floor) that the President can not only do as he pleases but make up the law as he goes along. The genie will have shattered the bottle.
Yet the practical implications of ousting Bush are truely duanting; even if I reject what your saying about viewing this presidency as an aberration. That’s not 15 minutes, Reg, it’s two more long years. George Will can tisk tisk till his tisker is broke, these people do not give a f@ck.
So hearings, lots of hearings. But if we are to retain one shread of decency as a culture, Reg, I think you are bound to support me in the following:
Unimpeach Clinton. Now more than ever.