An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Impeachment should be used with a great deal of caution and prudence. Regardless of whether it is justified or not to proceed with impeachment, I am too fond of this nation to get into this kind of habit.
(7.) What Nixon did was unquestionably criminal. Not so with Bush.
I’m pretty sure that ordering wiretaps without FISA court oversight is criminal. And the President has admitted to doing that and promised to continue.
Then there is the matter of the various violations of the UN Charter and the Geneva conventions governing war and the treatment of prisoners.
Its a shame that we impeached a relatively good president while a disasterous one will just skate by. I think there would probably be grounds to impeach- but reluctantly agree that it would set a bad precedent for the country. Its hard to envision partisanship getting even worse in succeeding administrations, but I guess its always possible.
Remember the 90′s, until the Senate has 67(2/3) votes, then nothing will happen. Nixon would have lost a Senate trial, Clinton survived the Starr witch hunt.
Maybe a meaningless resolution or no confidence vote, but not impeachment. Do we want Cheney to take over, or will the moonbats want to impeach the whole administration?
Sometimes I envy the British their parliamentary system and their no-confidence votes. But these two would just ignore it and hang on anyway. I would like to see them on the floor of the House, having to account to hostile Congressmen, though- the way Blair has for 10 years.
Andrew S. and Matt Y. both have interesting takes on impeachment. The roles are reversed as far as support for impeachment, AS is an favor MY says nyet.
Impeachment should be used with a great deal of caution and prudence. Regardless of whether it is justified or not to proceed with impeachment, I am too fond of this nation to get into this kind of habit.
I’m pretty sure that ordering wiretaps without FISA court oversight is criminal. And the President has admitted to doing that and promised to continue.
Then there is the matter of the various violations of the UN Charter and the Geneva conventions governing war and the treatment of prisoners.
Its a shame that we impeached a relatively good president while a disasterous one will just skate by. I think there would probably be grounds to impeach- but reluctantly agree that it would set a bad precedent for the country. Its hard to envision partisanship getting even worse in succeeding administrations, but I guess its always possible.
Remember the 90′s, until the Senate has 67(2/3) votes, then nothing will happen. Nixon would have lost a Senate trial, Clinton survived the Starr witch hunt.
Maybe a meaningless resolution or no confidence vote, but not impeachment. Do we want Cheney to take over, or will the moonbats want to impeach the whole administration?
Forget Bush, if you’re going to use the “I” word, I’d reserve it for Cheney.
I agree with Rudi. Here’s the case against impeachment in two words:
“President Cheney”.
The impeachment bill I’ve read about impeaches Cheney and then Bush.
Sometimes I envy the British their parliamentary system and their no-confidence votes. But these two would just ignore it and hang on anyway. I would like to see them on the floor of the House, having to account to hostile Congressmen, though- the way Blair has for 10 years.
Andrew S. and Matt Y. both have interesting takes on impeachment. The roles are reversed as far as support for impeachment, AS is an favor MY says nyet.
Bush resembles Ralph Nader in the photograph.