TIME for Impeachment?

Perjury to a grand jury, people. As far as I'm concerned, he can get his dick sucked every hour on the hour as long as he doesn't lie under oath about it.

 

Buh... Buh.... Buh....

 

AQB -- C'mon, now. And let me say I'm not ascribing at all to Klein's theory that we should impeach a president because he's a fuck-up -- or for "maladministration," to use a more formal ground that the Founders specifically rejected. It should be noted, though, that this also puts me on the opposite side from an awful lot of the people who pursued Bill Clinton -- some of whom talked relentlessly about a more flexible standard than mere proven criminality. This president, it should also be noted, has admitted that on 14 different occasions, he has violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and that he planned to continue to do so. Now, his pet lawyers found him a dubious fig-leaf that doesn't stand an ounce of scrutiny, which is what impeachment proceedings are supposed to determine. However...
We don't know if there's criminality involved in the USAt scandal. That's what hearings and oaths are for. (I'm willing to be that the situation with Yglesias and Domenici and Wilson in NM is right on the edge of an obstruction case.) And the notion that the VA system was the wreckage it is now before Bush got here to overload the system with an ill-founded war of choice is just not trying very hard.

 

Ask Scooter Libby what the consequences are for perjury.

 

A forthcoming Presidental pardon?

 

So since no-one else did anything about it, it makes it ok that he didn't? I'm not saying it's a crime, but to push the fact that others could have done something before him as a reason why he didn't have to is pretty weak.

 

There wouldn't be a country left if Darth Cheney were President. He'd declare martial law, suspend elections and make me walk around with a yellow star on my clothes.

 

Armchair,

Buddy, years from now, removed from politics, you'll realize this guy was the worst. Right up there with Andrew Jackson. And it's not because of what he believes or his party affiliation. It's because he doesn't care - and never ever has - about the details. He wants no part of the dirty work of government. He has never desired to do the heavy lifting. Oh, he can close his eyes and see a great world, but he won't put in the work.

His flaws are far more practical than ideological. But they've hurt our country greatly.

And for whatever Clinton was, see, you couldn't accuse him of that. He burned the midnight oil. He put in the hours. His ego wouldn't let him not be the smartest, most up-to-date guy in the room.

Bush lacks that desire, but it's not out of humility. It's out of living his whole life around smarter, more dynamic, controlling people. That's why he surrounded himself with the same kind of people. Never mind that some of them were fucking amateurs - and make no mistake, Rice is a brilliant amateur - they were his crew of advisors and handlers and their egos served as his.

Cheney, Rove - they never bothered me so much. I assure anyone - Al Gore is no less than a pompous meglomaniac than Dick Cheney (another 20 pounds and Gore will start stroking his cheeks like a godfather). The difference is…those guys have to run the team because Bush, while a natural leader, is completely unaware of the angles. He doesn't even know where the bodies buried.

Republicans, in 20 years, will have a hard time forgiving themselves for the last eight years. Their quest to recapture Reagalot has cost a lot of lives and the next century, which will be known for its Middle Eastern Wars.

 

"All is proceeding as I have foreseen."

Fun Fact: If Cheney were to become president now, he would be eligible to serve out the two remaining years on Shrub's term, then fix two elections of his own. He would become the second-longest serving president ever, behind FDR. Until he suspends the elections in 2016 and 2020 for "security reasons," that is.

 

Bush?
A natural leader?
Al Gore=Dick Cheney?
Hmm....

 

See? I just don't get that. The big "Ooooh, he lied under oath."

Yeah, about something people say they wouldn't have a problem with if he hadn't lied about it under oath.

Let's put W under oath.

 

It's the hubris of the leader of the free will knowingly speaking a mistruth despite taking a oath to do otherwise in a setting where breaking said oath is a crime.