By my count if at least 16 Republican Senators get mad enough at him he’s out of a job.
No, but the Iranians can. And if they are really smart, they will. They will do it by not responding to provocation. Its totally a winner for them, being harrassed and provoked by the Great Satan and responding with reserve and resolve. We come off the bully, they further underline their case for leader of the Muslim world. Such a focus might even make the distinction between Sunni and Shia irrelevent…me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against the stranger…
The Bushiviks genius for* precisely* the wrong move at the exactly wrong moment never ceases to astound.
Still very improbable, but it used to be impossible.
I just though of something else; the Dems won’t impeach Bush as long and Cheney is next in line.
I suppose members of Congress might sue him to enjoin him from prosecuting an undeclared (and therefore arguably unconstitutional) war. And if a judge agrees and issues an injunction…now there’s a doozy of a constitutional crisis. All three branches of government, duking it out.
Has the United States Congress, as a corporate entity, ever been a plaintiff in a civil suit?
Members of Congress have tried it before. Example: Lawmakers Sue Over ABM Pact Withdrawal: Lawsuit Seeks to Assert Congress’s Role in Treaties.
Well, maybe the next geezer who Cheney mistakes for a bird will duck and shoot him back! 
And it looks like a lawsuit was tried unsuccessfully before the Iraq invasion.
Slightly different situation, though. There Bush was acting under the color of the resolution authorizing force against Iraq. No such resolution against Iran.
Hmm… had Congress said “no” to Bush on the war in Iraq, would he have done it anyway? Especially considering the joint resolution was brought forth before the 2004 elections? If so, then he’d probably be the same way here.
Of course they CAN. They just WON’T.
The checks and balances are in play, but this is the will of the American people. They voted Bush into office knowing his aggressive record, and voted a lot of people into Congress (including Democrats) who had voted to support Bush’s aggressive plans. The system’s working the way it’s supposed to.
Yep, and the second Bush goes into Iran, you won’t be seeing a GOP in the White House and at least 75% of Capitol Hill for at least a decade. The system will work the way it’s supposed to.
And the Republicans wouldn’t impeach both Bush AND Cheney - they’d have many objections, but if nothing else, they wouldn’t want to appoint President Nancy Pelosi.
Right, there’d have to be a deal made to get some still-respectable Republican to replace Cheney first, to act as caretaker for the next 2 years. Or let the House pick a new Republican Speaker temporarily (it can be anybody, not just a member) for the critical day or so.
Or impeach ONLY Cheney.
Remember, though, that you’d still need 2/3 of the Senate to kick him out of office. I don’t see that hapening.
I agree, but only because there’s little time left, and if the cat gets belled, no real need.
But it would only take less than a third of the GOP Senators to assess their future career viability, not to mention the good of the country and the Constitution they’ve sworn to uphold, lies in removing a rogue warmonger. Don’t you think Bush is likely to push it anyway? And aren’t you aware of the depth of opposition in his own party from those who’ve already made that calculation?
Well, it would depend on the charge, of course. For example, if Fitzgerald had found something incriminating Cheney in the Plame affair, then he’d probably be gone already. I wouldn’t count on him being impeached for “lies” or being a “rogue warmonger”, though.
I don’t understand what you mean by “push it”. What’s “it”?
Again, it depends on the charge. If it was something serious, then yes. If it was something primarily politically motivated (as the Clinton impeachment was), then no.
I’d say launching an undeclared, unconstitutional war against Iran would meet that criterion. That’s what we’re discussing, isn’t it?
The charge can be anything Congress wants it to be, as you well know. Manipulating intelligence to lead us into a war of aggression would fit the bill.
[quote[I don’t understand what you mean by “push it”. What’s “it”?[/quote]
Probably an attack on Iran, but his escalation in Iraq would suffice as well.
Reconsider your reply in light of the above.
The bar is lowered. If Clinton can be reasonably impeached on a charge of lying about sex (and we have abundant testimony to that effect, which need not, repeat need* not*!, be reviewed again…), then its only a slight stretch to aver that Bush can reasonably be impeached for such minor pecadilloes as uneccesary war. Admittedly, it doesn’t reach the “fixed parking ticket” level of high crimes and misdemeanors, but still…