Will impeachment of GWB become serious consideration?

I oppose Bush, I support Democrats, but I’m unconvinced that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed. Dumb and offensive policies, no doubt, but I’m just not seeing crimes.

Nothing would turn me off faster from supporting Democrats than impeachment proceedings. Just because people dislike Bush doesn’t mean they have to like Democrats in Congress. It’s very easy to hate both, and on the short list of politically crazy things that would alienate huge numbers of people (many just like me), impeachment has got to rank as #2. Cutting off funds for the troops is certainly #1.

Well, where have you been looking? Because – and this is just scratching the surface, what with this Administration and all the secrecy – they are not exactly a mistery.

As for the rest of your post, well, it appears you’re right in the general consensus. Though, if you don’t mind, I’ll refer you back to Elvis’ link. It’s all political posturing – and yes, I realize how the game works. But I still think it’s all a steaming pile.

You know, in terms of voter backlash in November 2008, it seems to me that if impeachment goes forward and there’s a trial and everything is laid bare, any Pub senator who votes to acquit W/Dick will have a lot more to worry about than any Dem senator who votes to convict.

Yeah, but you just never know how people are going to react. Its not entirely out of the question that a meme of “Poor persecuted GeeDub, bless his heart, he means well” might actually fly. Wierder things have happened.

Right, just like happened in 2000. :rolleyes: Clearly anyone who voted to acquit an obviously guilty President would be kicked to the curb at once.

Especially if it was all pretty much party-line.

Regards,
Shodan

Well, there is that, of course. Some of us more deranged lefties think that GeeDub’s misdemeneanors are rather more serious than a knob-gobbling, with its limited effect on national security.

The Odd Thing Bosda Saw Today

A crudely-written sign, black felt tip on white pasteboard, wired to the back of a pickup truck.

It said–

This, in Tennessee. A State anchored to the Religious Right & ultra-conservative.

yikes.

Not too surprising. W’s stance on immigration has cost him a lot of his grass-roots, non-corporate base, and so has the war.

If Congress is planning on impeachment, it looks like they’ve started laying the groundwork.

Ah, so Pelosi was lying after all.

Regards,
Shodan

How so? Issuing subpoenas isn’t the same as impeachment.

Pelosi may open the door on impeachment if more criminal activity in the White House can be shown. Just because she said it was off the table once doesn’t prevent her from revising that stance if evidence of new scandals and crimes make that appropriate.

Sshhh! Lay off the confusing details.

And – in connection with a different, earlier set of subpoenas – the WH is providing them with plenty of ammunition by stonewalling.

Remember what happened when Nixon pled “executive privilege” about stuff he didn’t want to give up?

In fact, law professor John Turley argues that the WH’s stonewalling may force Congress to charge the president with criminal offenses.

Operation Candor…the Big Enchilada…“If the President does it, that means its not illegal”…

Deja voodoo, all over again.