# Bush/Cheney Simulpeachment: to Pre-Empt a War With Iran (or whoever) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2007, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654 "2007-02-03T11:53:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2007, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/41 "2007-02-03T22:14:17Z")
[QUOTE=chappachula] you may be completely right…But impeaching (or getting rid of) the idiots won’t make us any safer, either. And many Bush-bashers can’t even understand that concept. [/QUOTE] I’m a Bush-basher, and I do understand the concept. Getting a Democrat into the Oval Office isn’t a magical remedy. The mess will still be there. But it will send a clear message to our allies (such as we have left) that We The People are taking back our government and starting to set things right. As I said before the war started, we are supposed to be a nation of laws. Let’s abide by our laws and prosecute those in our government who violate them. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2007, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/42 "2007-02-03T22:14:21Z")
[QUOTE=alphaboi867] She could declare herself President on the grounds that the Speaker and President pro tem aren’t constitutionally eligible to succeed to the Presidency. [/quote] How could she possibly argue that? On what grounds could they be ineligible? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2007, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/43 "2007-02-03T22:19:44Z")
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster] So it’s not OK to impeach someone for but it is OK, based on to invade someone’s country, chase him down and have him executed, destroy the nation he ruled, and kill hundreds if not thousands of his citizens. I see. Maybe you guys should learn how to duck, then, in case the rest of the world uses your logic on you. :rolleyes: [/quote] I have no idea what you’re talking about. The invasion of Iraq was overwhelmingly approved by both Houses of Congress. Bush did nothing illegal when he invaded Iraq. > [@](#): > > Anyway, as people have pointed out more than once, the impeachment is about the lies Bush and the Bushites have told and the laws they have broken. Anyway, you obviously didn’t read the OP, because that is precisely not what he’s talking about doing. ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2007, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/44 "2007-02-03T22:28:08Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Anyway, you obviously didn’t read the OP, because that is precisely not what he’s talking about doing. [/QUOTE] He’s saying they need to be impeached before they do any more damage. That does not speak to the grounds that you would use to impeach them, merely the motivation for putting the impeachment into motion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2007, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/45 "2007-02-03T22:32:06Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I have no idea what you’re talking about. The invasion of Iraq was overwhelmingly approved by both Houses of Congress. Bush did nothing illegal when he invaded Iraq… [/quote] Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! He said over and over that the authorization was intended to _prevent_ war! That it would strengthen his hand for negotiation towards a peaceful resolution of a desperate (non-existent) and immediate (non-existent) threat. You know this as well as I. > [@](#): > > …Anyway, you obviously didn’t read the OP, because that is precisely not what he’s talking about doing. So what? The SDMB rules and customs are not a suicide pact, nor are they a device intended to muzzle themes of debate you find distasteful. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2007, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/46 "2007-02-03T22:50:18Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! He said over and over that the authorization was intended to _prevent_ war! That it would strengthen his hand for negotiation towards a peaceful resolution of a desperate (non-existent) and immediate (non-existent) threat. You know this as well as I. [/quote] Sorry, but it doesn’t matter. They authorized him to use force if he determined that negotiation had reached an end. He determined that it had, and so he went to war. The authorization made it clear that Bush was the decider. That’s all that matters. > [@](#): > > So what? The SDMB rules and customs are not a suicide pact, nor are they a device intended to muzzle themes of debate you find distasteful. I didn’t say he couldn’t talk about anything. But if says this thread is about “A”, when it’s actually about “B”, I’m also free to point out that it’s about “A”, especially when he’s refuting my claim that the OP said “A”, or claiming that “people” are talking about “B” when they are, in fact, talking about “A”. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2007, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/47 "2007-02-03T22:57:17Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] How could she possibly argue that? On what grounds could they be ineligible? [/QUOTE] Seperation of powers. There’s some debate over whether members of the legislative branch qualify as an officer under the Constitution. Of course if Rice vs Pelosi ever did come before SCOTUS I think it’d be a 9-0 vote in favour of Pelosi very quickly. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2007, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/48 "2007-02-03T23:04:14Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Sorry, but it doesn’t matter. They authorized him to use force if he determined that negotiation had reached an end. He determined that it had, and so he went to war. The authorization made it clear that Bush was the decider. That’s all that matters… [/quote] Nonsense. You have put too fine a point on it. Do you deny that it was implicit in the authorization that a “good faith” effort be made? Are you going to suggest that such an effort _was_ made? If so, would you be so kind as to limn your reasoning, if such it be? > [@](#): > > …I didn’t say he couldn’t talk about anything. But if says this thread is about “A”, when it’s actually about “B”, I’m also free to point out that it’s about “A”, especially when he’s refuting my claim that the OP said “A”, or claiming that “people” are talking about “B” when they are, in fact, talking about “A”. Certainly you are. Why would you bother? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2007, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/49 "2007-02-03T23:15:25Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Nonsense. You have put too fine a point on it. Do you deny that it was implicit in the authorization that a “good faith” effort be made? Are you going to suggest that such an effort _was_ made? If so, would you be so kind as to limn your reasoning, if such it be? [/QUOTE] I don’t accept “implicit” laws. But if you would like to bring it up with the SCOTUS, feel free to do so. And if you get a favorable ruling, then I will concede your point. Until then, it is nonsense to argue that an Authorization to Use Military force is not, in fact, an authorization to use military force. Let me quote the relevant section for you (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. > > ``` > (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed > > ``` > > Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and > appropriate in order to– > (1) defend the national security of the United States > against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and > (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council > resolutions regarding Iraq. Whatever we might say about (1), Saddam Hussein was in violation of UNSC resolutions. Remember, Saddam had to not only eliminate his WNDs, but he had to account for the elimination process, which he never fully did. Now, I don’t for a second think that’s a good reason to go to war, but Congress did authorize it. Saying otherwise is to ignore the very words in the resolution. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2007, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/50 "2007-02-03T23:33:00Z")
Well, gee, **John** , sure want to thank you for quoting the same goddam thing I’ve seen quoted here…what, a thousand times? Did you think to astound me? Am I expected to reel away in dismay and confusion? Do you imagine that if the UN had rescinded its previous resolutions and declared Saddam in compliance it would have made a difference? Do you imagine, even for a moment, that the purpose of the excercise was to empower the UN? Or was it, as I suspect, merely an attempt to drape the tattered legitimacy of the UN over a dishonorable and base act? Does not the UN Charter forbid aggressive war? Wouldn’t that take precedence over a tortured reading of resolutions? Bush tried to get authorization from the UN for his attack, and failed. Doesn’t that make your appeal to UN authority rather tawdry? The authorization was based on lies, **John**. Big ones, little ones, and lots of them. If I ask to borrow your car to go to the store, with the full intent of using it to run down little old ladies in the crosswalk, and you consent…did you authorize me to run down little old ladies? > [@](#): > > …Now, I don’t for a second think that’s a good reason to go to war, but Congress did authorize it. Saying otherwise is to ignore the very words in the resolution. Then why, for the love of Jesus, do you bring it up, unless to parse precisely and tease out some legitimacy where none exists, save by way of an exquisitely careful reading? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2007, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/51 "2007-02-03T23:37:01Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Does not the UN Charter forbid aggressive war? [/QUOTE] Yes. > [@](#): > > **Article 2, paragraph 4** > All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2007, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/52 "2007-02-03T23:50:50Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Bush did nothing illegal when he invaded Iraq. [/QUOTE] From [The United States Constitution](http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6) (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > **Article VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths** > > All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. > > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and **all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.** > > The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. By violating the UN Charter, Bush violated The Supreme Law of the Land. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/53 "2007-02-04T00:00:07Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Well, gee, **John** , sure want to thank you for quoting the same goddam thing I’ve seen quoted here…what, a thousand times? Did you think to astound me? Am I expected to reel away in dismay and confusion? [/quote] I expected you to read it, and not to make us stuff that isn’t in there. If you actually do read it, you’ll see that there’s nothing “implicit” about the diplomatic efforts that were supposed to have been done first-- it’s actually written into the AUMF. But again, it’s Bush who gets to decide when those efforts have failed. That is a fact. It’s right in the text. > [@](#): > > Do you imagine that if the UN had rescinded its previous resolutions and declared Saddam in compliance it would have made a difference? Do you imagine that has any bearing on the point? Are you claiming the action is illegal because Bush might have ignored a different action by the UN? > [@](#): > > Do you imagine, even for a moment, that the purpose of the excercise was to empower the UN? Or was it, as I suspect, merely an attempt to drape the tattered legitimacy of the UN over a dishonorable and base act? Does not the UN Charter forbid aggressive war? Wouldn’t that take precedence over a tortured reading of resolutions? Bush tried to get authorization from the UN for his attack, and failed. Doesn’t that make your appeal to UN authority rather tawdry? Actually, no, it wouldn’t. But again, if and when you get a SCOTUS decision saying otherwise I’ll concede the point. And it’s simply laughable that you’d call a plain reading of the text “tortured”. It says what it says, not what you wish it said. > [@](#): > > The authorization was based on lies, **John**. Big ones, little ones, and lots of them. Even if that were true, I’m afraid it doesn’t matter. > [@](#): > > If I ask to borrow your car to go to the store, with the full intent of using it to run down little old ladies in the crosswalk, and you consent…did you authorize me to run down little old ladies? There are bad analogies, and then there’s that one. If you asked to borrow my car and said you’d run over little old ladies if you had to, then I would not be surprised if you did, in fact, run over little old ladies. > [@](#): > > Then why, for the love of Jesus, do you bring it up, unless to parse precisely and tease out some legitimacy where none exists, save by way of an exquisitely careful reading? I like how you call “reading” parsing. But in case you forgot what you wrote a few minutes ago, I brought it up because you posted this: > [@elucidator](#): > > > [@John Mace](#): > > > > I have no idea what you’re talking about. The invasion of Iraq was overwhelmingly approved by both Houses of Congress. Bush did nothing illegal when he invaded Iraq… > > Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! If you claim I’ve made a false statement, I’m going to reply and tell you why it’s not false. Don’t hide behind your cries of “parsing” when I do. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/54 "2007-02-04T00:00:07Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Impeaching someone for something you think he might do in the future is beyond the pale. It’s unconstitutional and completely contrary to our system of government. [/quote] I disagree. Impeaching a President and/or Vice President for _what they give you damned good reason to believe they might do in the future_, should the consequences of such actions be severe enough, I would regard as my bounden duty, if I were in Congress. If you want an impeachable offense that’s already happened, or could easily be brought to a go/no go point, a refusal to acknowledge the authority of Congress to decide whether to make war or not would do. > [@](#): > > what the OP is asking for is to subvert the constitution for purely political reasons. That, my friend, is bullshit. Preventing an arbitrary initiation of war by the Executive is hardly “purely political reasons.” > [@](#): > > The proper thing for Congress to do is not to impeach Bush, but to revoke the AUMF. Bush might veto that, but I think if Congress puts a firm deadline for some reasonable time in the future (12 -18 months), that it might able to pull it off-- especially if it’s tied to a defunding measure. Revoke the AUMF, and lead some massive demonstrations in DC every damn day until Bush agrees to get us out of there. ??? I’m not sure what the Iraq AUMF has to do with Iran. I’d like to see Congress attach a clause to the next Iraq funding bill explicitly putting off limits U.S. military action within, or attacks on, Iran proper, without the consent of Congress, for the next two years. But the problem is still that Bush and Cheney have made it clear they believe they are beyond the authority of Congress in such matters. And as Stalin once asked about the Pope, how many divisions does Congress have? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/55 "2007-02-04T00:05:20Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Really, **RTF** , how in the hell do you figure that is legal to impeach someone for a possible future act? Where do you get that from the constitution? [/quote] The Constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and pretty much lets Congress decide what they are. Who’s going to say it’s not legal? The Supremes generally stay out of disputes concerning the fundamental powers of Congress v. the Executive. > [@](#): > > Every president in recent history, except maybe Carter, used military force w/o the approval of Congress. I hate to bring up “Clinton did it, too”, but… well, Clinton did, too! In fact, it’s not even proper to say “too”, because Bush did have Congressional authority to invade Iraq. Should Clinton have been impeached and removed from office for bombing Iraq or for bombing the hell out of Serbia? And the consequences of these actions were?? I’m talking about making sure these loons don’t make the Middle East into a volcano that will have us looking back at our current quagmire as a quiet idyll. Your examples aren’t remotely comparable. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/56 "2007-02-04T00:09:55Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I didn’t say he couldn’t talk about anything. But if says this thread is about “A”, when it’s actually about “B”, I’m also free to point out that it’s about “A”, especially when he’s refuting my claim that the OP said “A”, or claiming that “people” are talking about “B” when they are, in fact, talking about “A”. [/QUOTE] In this, I support you completely. Whatever people may _use_ this thread for, it certainly wasn’t _intended_ as a place to rehash the legality or morality of our invasion of Iraq, or our current prospects there. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/57 "2007-02-04T00:25:47Z")
With which reminder I defer to the esteemed **Arty** and refrain from further debate on said theme. With the mild demurral that Iraq is so central to the matters at hand, it is impossible to ignore, the elephant in the room is abundantly flatulent. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/58 "2007-02-04T00:35:03Z")
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.] From [The United States Constitution](http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6) (emphasis mine): By violating the UN Charter, Bush violated The Supreme Law of the Land. [/QUOTE] ::sigh:: We’ve been over this so many times before, but maybe you weren’t watching. That article means that no state can violate either the US constitution (those parts applicable to the states), US laws, or any treaties authorized by the federal government. It sets up The Constitution, Federal laws, and Treaties as “the supreme law of the land”. It does not put treaties above either the Constitution or Federal Laws. Think how absurd that would be if it did. Your reading would put treaties above the constitution! [This site](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/02.html#2) explains the Supremacy Clause well, if you are interested. In particular, this quote from _Gibbons vs. Ogden_ is pertinent: > [@](#): > > The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/59 "2007-02-04T00:49:27Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] That article means that no state can violate either the US constitution (those parts applicable to the states), US laws, or any treaties authorized by the federal government. It sets up The Constitution, Federal laws, and Treaties as “the supreme law of the land”. It does not put treaties above either the Constitution or Federal Laws. [/QUOTE] It would, however, appear to make treaties (which must be consented to by the Senate) the equal of Federal laws, rendering a law that violated a treaty without explicit language rescinding the treaty at least the legitimate target of a legal challenge in court. **Johnny** did not claim that the action was unconstitutional–only that it was a violation of the Law of the Land. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654/60 "2007-02-04T00:57:30Z")
What a vision I’ve just seen! As through a glass, clearly… Some time hence, I open the GD Forum, and see a thread titled “Was the Inaugaration of President Pelosi Strictly Legal?” and think to myself, what, this again? Hey, it’s over, already, time to move on, get over it… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-simulpeachment-to-pre-empt-a-war-with-iran-or-whoever/390654.md?page=4)