Sorry…you are right and that all constitutes a serious hijack. I’ll leave it to another thread if necessary to continue (not that it hasn’t been done to death around here anyway).
Well, IANAL, but my understanding of the wire tap issue is it ISN’T illegal. If it is, then simply point me to the where and how and I’m on board. I have no great love of GW…I’m just tired of hearing about all this illegal stuff he’s done without anyone taking the time to SHOW that its illegal.
Since gross imcompetence isn’t impeachable (afaik) I don’t see how you will get him on the ‘lieing’ to Congress either…especially since GW wasn’t Congresses sole pipeline to the information. Assuming for a moment that GW DID lie (and I wouldn’t put it past the man), you’d need some kind of proof that he did, and did so in a systematic way. Do you know of such proof?
As for the investigations…well, its a complicated issue, but let me ask you…why do YOU think there haven’t been any investigations? Is it solely because the Republicans control both houses? Are you implying that if one party controls both houses that its impossible to get an investigation of the Presidency if he happens to be in the same party? My own understanding of how our system works seems to indicate this isn’t so…otherwise if any one party controlled both houses and the Presidency they would essentially be a dictatorship, able to do anything they wanted without fear or penalty. If I’m wrong, again, point me to the information that indicates that once a single party controls both houses and the Presidency that they are in complete control and the other party is helpless and I’ll better understand this arguement.
You claim that Clinton was hounded for ‘7 years over Whitewater’…and yet the Republicans didn’t control both houses when he took office. How did THEY managed to hound the President on this when they didn’t control both houses? Are the Dems simply incapable…or perhaps there is another explaination for why the issues you listed haven’t been as fully investigate as you would wish (afaik there actually HAVE been some investigations over a few of the issues you listed…just no impeachment proceedings as, again afaik, nothing that Bush COULD be impeached on has thus far come out).
Seriously, if there is something Bush can be impeached on I’m all for it…impeach his ass. But all I ever hear in these kinds of thread are wishful thinking and the like…never anything actually solid from a legalistic/realistic perspective.
-XT
Rather than hijack this further I’ll just point you to the link below which is just one of many sites that lay out the case for impeachment. The site below does a pretty good job of detailing with links and quotes the laws in question and the provable case against Bush. I think there definitely is enough there for impeachment to at least be a possibility and definitely enough to merit closer inspection.
If this was Bill Clinton having done these things and facing today’s Congress I have little doubt that this would be enough for them to at start impeachment proceedings.
I’ll check it out then…I also don’t wish to hijack the thread. Though the wording of the OP leads me to believe its far from a theoretical excersize…
-XT
Forgot to address this bit.
There is an attempt at an investigation and the attempt is specifically aimed at determining if impeachment is a possibility. House Resolution 635 (<–PDF) is currently out there. We’ll just have to wait and see where it goes. I’m betting the pubs bury it.
Saw the new thread, you are forgiven. 