Will impeachment of GWB become serious consideration?

Thank you, John, for your input. Done like the poster I hold a lot of respect for. As for your correction, I’d have to do some fact checking – not that I don’t take your word – but, because, quite frankly, I need to educate myself further on the NIE itself, for other than using a part here or there as a cite, I’m not intimate with the document as a whole.

However, my main point remains…and you’ve done a better job than I at explaining it.

Thanks again.

RedFury: BTW, my analysis of the NIE is purely relying on the word of Bob Graham as reported by the NYT-- the full report remains classified, and so none of us is going to be able judge for ourselves.

The edit window timed-out on me. I wanted to point that what John had done a good job explaining was this particular part of his post:

  • highlights mine.

Also wanted to add that IIRC, the NIE was indeed heavily weighted down by the Office of Special Plans – you know, the Neocon’s own little bunker… But as I said, I’ll do some research and see what comes up. Memory is not what it used to be. And it wasn’t much to begin with.

OTOH, the POTUS in question need not be accused of a crime as such. Consider the Articles of Impeachment against Andrew Johnson.

:confused:

Unfortunately, the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Courts treaty.

You misspelled “fortunately”. :wink:

It would be pointless, this is our planet, the rest of them just rent.

Dennis Kucinich is way ahead of you.

Of course, Cheney now insists his office is “not an entity within the Executive Branch.” Which must leave him in the legislative branch, specifically the Senate, of which he is president. And any member of Congress can be expelled from office by a simple majority of his or her house; no impeachment is necessary. Soooooo . . . . :smiley:

Especially as nobody gets to sniff. That is, Congressional articles of impeachment have never been appealed to the federal courts, and it is doubtful whether the courts would even have jurisdiction to rule on said articles’ propriety.

Of courts, only the courts themselves could decide that question.

We, the people, get to sniff and act accordingly in the next election cycle.

I think they would decide not to rule.

She probably felt like she needed to distance herself from the wingnuts. And I don’t think it would be that big a deal to put it back on the table if conditions changed.

Why not?

Because of the extreme likelihood of it coming back to bite the Democratic party in particular and the American system of government in general in the ass.

Here’s a possible scenario -

The Dems adopt the thinking of the SDMB and impeach Bush and Cheney because he is unpopular, and a Republican, and because they can do it. They muster a simple majority in the House. Voting in the Senate trial is strictly along party lines, and the two-thirds majority is not achieved.

Coming into the 2008 elections, the Republicans launch a well-financed campaign labelling the impeachment as a naked power grab. President Pelosi, not being nearly as stupid as she would have to be not to catch on, declines to run in 2008.

The tenure in office of any Democrat who wins from now to 2020 will last exactly as long as he/she maintains a majority in Congress. And not all the screams of “IOKIADDI” from the Usual Suspects are going to change that.

If it was good enough for our goose, your gander had better watch her feathery white (or inexperienced Halfrican-Hamerican) ass.

Regards,
Shodan

Yet *another * revenge fantasy from you? :rolleyes:

To the OP, it’s too late, we’re already deeply in the campaign for the next President, and Bush is already a lame duck.

What a stupid thing to say.

The same would apply, of course, to any Republican POTUS . . . And then we would have something similar to the British parliamentary system, with its votes of no confidence. What’s wrong with that?

Been over the comparative-structures-of-government topic many times here, BG. “What’s wrong with that” is the effect on balance of powers - we can’t make one branch subservient to another, especially if it is controlled by a different party.

Is that it? Really? Gee whiz, I thought we had some actual issues! Boy, is my face red! Had no idea our concerns were so shallow!

John, FWIW, this is what going around in my mind when thinking of the NIE:

The New Pentagon Papers

– my highlights. Much more at source.

And yes, I realize the Right has done its best to demonize Karen Kwiatkowski, but I’ve been reading and listening to her for quite some time and feel quite the opposite: I admire her integrity.

Go figure.

Good to see I am not alone in my memory loss. Because I could swear that Shodan is revising history as we spea…er, type.

Without the vote of the people in amending the Constitution?

:shrugs:

This is based on the (pretty obviously false) assumption that the Usual Suspects would treat the impeachment of a Democrat for no particular reason besides his unpopularity the same as they would the impeachment of Bush. You wouldn’t.

You could, but you’d be lying.

Regards,
Shodan