Will Bush be impeached??

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap


Who ever said Congress would have to make up a new law or crime to impeach Bush?

I think everyone should read up on the Johnson Impeachment.

IIRC the Tenure of Office Act was passed (and subsequently violated) before Johnson was impeached. At the time of impeachment there was clearly violated legislation on which the House could base its decision.

When was the "Disingenuous Embellishment of Pre-War Intelligence Act" passed?

[Zkribbler]

Red Storm Rising was the worst thing by Clancy I ever read!

[Ecthy]

Really? What wouldbe a good one, maybe with a bit more politics in there and less details on military equipment?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
no but he will be like Pinochet and hounded by war crimes charges for the rest of his life

It will basically restrict his travel, same for Rumsfeld and Cheney

Do they care? probably not

In your wet dreams.

[Zkribbler]

I'd guess The Sum of All Fears is his best. The last 1/3 of that book was one of the most tense I've ever come across.

The Hunt for Red October and Clear and Present Danger are also good, but Hollywood did good jobs into turning them into good motion pictures...so rent the DVD/Videos.

[notyoueither]

Red Storm Rising was a good book if military affairs are of interest to you.

[Zkribbler]

If you mean military strategy and tactics, yes.
But it was nearly devoid of any human element.

[notyoueither]

You're assuming people who spend their lives studying war give a **** about any human element that does not have to do with morale of troops and force capability.

[Zkribbler]

More precisely, I assuming the reader of a novel has some interest in the human element of the story.

[notyoueither]

It wasn't written for a Harlequin Romance audience.

It got a lot of publicity because it was Tom Clancy, and it was a great book for its genre.

You're criticising it for being about weapons and tactics, and less about people. You went to a rock concert and are miffed that it was not a symphony.

[Elok]

As has been remarked, Bush has two years to go now. By the time that lazy-ass Congress impeached and convicted him, he'd have a year left, tops. And in the hubbub they'd do even less than usual, causing this country to move even further towards hell in its red, white, and blue handbasket. Ideally, Bush would resign--no, scratch that, ideally Bush and Cheney would leave letters of resignation on their desks before committing seppuku together with sharpened official White House letter openers. But I don't think that's going to happen. We'll just have to weather the storm of stupidity to its last pitiful gasp of hot air.

[Underseer]

No, there will be no impeachment. The Democrats are all spineless conservative-appeasers.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Underseer
No, there will be no impeachment. The Democrats are all spineless conservative-appeasers.

No; there will be no impeachment because, for one brief shining moment, the Dems seem to have a scintilla of political acumen and a willingness to learn from history.

The public turned against congress during the Clinton impeachment, and Clinton's popularity climbed during the ordeal. There's no reason to assume a Bush impreachment would be any different. It would be a dumb move, and a bad lead-in to the 2008 election.

What we will see are endless "fact-finding" hearings on Iraq and other topics (like Cheney's energy task force), which will have the same desired effect as an impeachment (airing the administration's dirty laundry and embarrassing its officials) without its downside (pissing off the public, installing Cheney as Overlord, etc.).

[notyoueither]

That would be too intelligent to expect from American politics, Rufus.

[Underseer]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


No; there will be no impeachment because, for one brief shining moment, the Dems seem to have a scintilla of political acumen and a willingness to learn from history.

The public turned against congress during the Clinton impeachment, and Clinton's popularity climbed during the ordeal. There's no reason to assume a Bush impreachment would be any different. It would be a dumb move, and a bad lead-in to the 2008 election.

What we will see are endless "fact-finding" hearings on Iraq and other topics (like Cheney's energy task force), which will have the same desired effect as an impeachment (airing the administration's dirty laundry and embarrassing its officials) without its downside (pissing off the public, installing Cheney as Overlord, etc.).

Gotta love conservatives and their endless false equivalency arguments.

So you're saying that what Bush has done is no worse than what Clinton did?

We prosecuted Germans and Japanese for what Bush did.

We did not prosecute Germans and Japanese for what Clinton did.

I apologize for not making that clear in the first place.

Now, answer me. Were we wrong to prosecute those Germans and Japanese then, or do you think we're wrong to avoid prosecuting Bush now. You can't have it both ways.