I had not intended to venture into the shoals of quotidien analysis, and it is clear that events presently lag the threshold that would bitch slap the pubs in congress into a state of wakefulness, the unhappy premise underlying my post is that things are sliding over a precipice like Gandalf and the 'Balrog…
Even a man who was willing to marry Liz Taylor in her post Burton Post weight gain fifties is already upset enough to tell denny hastert to sit and spin, ya feel me?
You disregard the fact that the entire “hearing” process was a regurgitation of the Starr report. Nothing of significance happened between the time that the HJC “inquiry” (which was nothing of the sort) was announced, as you say, and the time that the “hearings” were conducted by the lame-duck, Speakerless House on a whipped party-line vote. The “hostility” of the Congress was irrelevant to the timetable; their decision to impeach him for something, anything, whatever it took, had been made long before, and all that was needed was the pretext that Starr’s porn novel finally bestowed.
There’s certainly enough time if the sense of urgency is sufficient. There’s certainly enough factual basis.
I said it was a chickenshit surrogate for his real crimes
kind of like the tax evasion prosecution of Big Al.
I was trying to satisfy what I took to be an excessively legalistic demand from partner X for specific law violations.
I assure you that in the hands of a vengeful congress, it would suffice.
[QUOTE=Jimmy Chitwood]
Every one of your OP’s is a reference to the consumption of illegal substances.
'the king of the visigoths will maintain a dignified silence in response to this slander…
Nah, you’re right. That was pretty much a personal insult, and that’s not allowed here. I’m sorry.
I still don’t get it, though. Do you honestly think they could remove him from office for the gun thing, or do you just want to see charges brought against him? You can only impeach the president for treason, or bribery, or “high crimes and misdemeanors,” right? How could a possible minor gun infraction count? Or are you just saying that if you had your druthers, it would be enough?
I am being obscure.
I do not expect W to be impeached, whether for the gun or for his real high crimes. That is a reflection on us, not on him.
I DO believe he SHOULD be impeached, and it might be (in retrospect) the failure of congress so to impeach that is seen, in ten or twenty years, as the tragic moment of the 21st century, depending upon how much more damage he does in the next seven months.
In the spirit of debate here, I must point out that as passionate as many of you are here, you are in the solid minority. Millions of people think that GWB is doing the right thing and it is my opinion that he will be re-elected.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. The only **facts ** brought out here demonstrate that it took 5 months for Clinton’s impeachment process. If you have other facts, let’s see them. Otherwise, you’re just offering your opinion.
As John has pointed out, it would be next to impossible to get GW impeached in the time remaining…and that is assuming there is even a movement TOO impeach him, which there isn’t right now.
So, lets pretend for a moment that, gods forbid, GW is re-elected in November. Lets further fantasize that the Republicans loose control of the house and senate sometime during GW’s second term. What charges for impeachment do YOU think should be brought against him? You’ve been vague so far…be specific. What do you really think he COULD be impeached on. If impeachment proceedings were brought against him, do you think he WOULD e impeached?
-XT
Obviously.
Most of which was downtime, as I already pointed out, waiting for Starr to provide the reason for the predetermined decision. The actual “work” took much less time.
Already done. Horse wouldn’t drink, though.
As opposed to what you’re doing, which is what?
xtisme, it wouldn’t happen so soon after the people, the final authority, endorsed his continuation in office. That would also remove first-term actions from discussion. The process exists, in the case of elected officials, for instances where the republic is actually endangered by the subject’s conduct in office to the extent where the people’s elected representatives have to act on their employers’ behalf to terminate it. An intervening election overrides that.
But that scenario is as fanciful as the OP is choleric.
I guess what I’m trying to get from the OP is what could GW be realistically impeached FOR? Not what he dislikes about the president, but what he really believes GW could be seriously impeached for doing while in office. I understand what you are saying about the election, and I agree with you, though I obviously don’t know all the legal aspects of this thing.
-XT
The horse didn’t drink because your argument didn’t make any sense. If anything, the fact that the Starr investigation was already underway would have **SHORTENED ** the process. Since there is no similar activity going on now, Congress would have to spend **additional time ** doing the investigative work.
The only thing that needs to be impeached is the horrible melodrama on this board.
Are you asking for a pitting of your own with this foolishness? The time between the decision to impeach and the subsequent bestowal of a reason could have been two months, two years, or two minutes. In the meanwhile, the HJC GOP wasn’t doing anything.
Yet you insist that somehow that sets a minimum time for the work to be done? Not in the world of fact, it doesn’t. No “investigation” is actually required; all that it takes is a sense of urgency and a vote. Now take that drink.
xtisme, as long as we’re hypothesizing, the reasons I’d present would start with lying about the reasons to go to war. Second on the list would be failure to prosecute the search for Bin Laden with the full strength of the military and diplomatic efforts. Next would be the flouting of the Geneva Conventions by which we are bound, and which action exposes our own captured troops to the same treatment. There could be a much longer list, but those represent the gravest dangers to the Republic resulting from Bush’s actions. I’d include Cheney and Rumsfeld in the bill of impeachment as well - I’m not sure if Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Cambone, Tenet, and Perle are covered.
Hear hear.
[QUOTE=lotsa liberals]
Bush lied! Bush lied!
From here
Lie:1. A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive
Now…cite?
there is no mandatory period of investigation, debate, or what have you.
to cast back to the op,
i"drooling and waving his flagpole…" You would have him impeached and convicted in two days, (and there wouldn’t be any niceties about whether his dick cuirved to the left or to the right)
He is still fucking with the UN in Iraq, and may blow ouir least chance to get out of this mess. He is doing horrendous damage EVERY SINGLE DAY THAT HE WAKES UP PRESIDENT.
And you still need to show that any of that rises to the level of an impeachable offense.
Until you do that it’s not Bush that’s waving his flagpole around.
*I thought partner elvis did well enough, but I reiterate that “impeachable offenses” are whatever the house judiciary committee thinks.
personally, I like the abu ghraib category, because he is c in c, he must “take care that the laws are enforced”, he knew the geneva convention was being subverted, and permitted the subversion to continue.
**nicely put…
I can’t believe that this fantasy has gone this far without someone asking the obvious question:
Why get rid of the ventriloquist’s dummy simply to replace him with the ventriloquist?
Or did I miss it?
In what way is Cheney better than Bush? With the exception of possibly expiring of natural causes sooner?
Remember that even Nixon’s impeachment didn’t get rolling until Agnew was removed.
*I was rollin’ with Elvis (bush+cheney)
(theres a song title there somewhere…)
…
*and a good thing he bailed me out on that point…