| Author |
Message |
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Impeach them both? |
|
|
There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
I see nothing in the document that disallows the impeachment of both,
more or less simultaneously. After that it would be up to Congress to
appoint a more appropriate person to lead the nation until a new
election is held. Even that conservative bunch of rascals would be
hard put to find someone worse than who holds the reins today. Beside
which, the new leader would be lamer than the typical lame duck, and
Congress might then be able to regain its rightful place in
government, as provided for in the Constitution, but largely snatched
away by Bush and even by some of his predecessors.
The following, from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, applies
to the removal process:
Clause 6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of
his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and
Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice
President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of
Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and
Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President,
and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be
removed, or a President shall be elected.
The grounds for impeachment of both I'd choose is the fact of their
lying to the American people when urging war against Iraq. This is now
documented in a recently declassified document siting evidence that
the Bush administration knew full well that reports of Iraq's links to
Al Qaeda were highly suspect. They had no reliable reports, in fact,
of such links -- they lied to make war with a sovereign nation appear
justifiable: that is an impeachable offence, I'd think, by anyone's
standards.
Take a look at today's article in the NY times for more on this
disclosure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.ready.html
--
Charles Riggs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Blue Hornet
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
I see nothing in the document that disallows the impeachment of both,
more or less simultaneously. After that it would be up to Congress to
appoint a more appropriate person to lead the nation until a new
election is held. Even that conservative bunch of rascals would be
hard put to find someone worse than who holds the reins today. Beside
which, the new leader would be lamer than the typical lame duck, and
Congress might then be able to regain its rightful place in
government, as provided for in the Constitution, but largely snatched
away by Bush and even by some of his predecessors.
The following, from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, applies
to the removal process:
Clause 6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of
his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and
Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice
President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of
Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and
Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President,
and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be
removed, or a President shall be elected.
The grounds for impeachment of both I'd choose is the fact of their
lying to the American people when urging war against Iraq. This is now
documented in a recently declassified document siting evidence that
the Bush administration knew full well that reports of Iraq's links to
Al Qaeda were highly suspect. They had no reliable reports, in fact,
of such links -- they lied to make war with a sovereign nation appear
justifiable: that is an impeachable offence, I'd think, by anyone's
standards.
Take a look at today's article in the NY times for more on this
disclosure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.ready.html
--
Charles Riggs
|
If lying to the public were an impeachable offense we'd have no
government whatsoever. Hell, it works for Italy ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: |
There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
I see nothing in the document that disallows the impeachment of both,
more or less simultaneously. After that it would be up to Congress to
appoint a more appropriate person to lead the nation until a new
election is held. Even that conservative bunch of rascals would be
hard put to find someone worse than who holds the reins today. Beside
which, the new leader would be lamer than the typical lame duck, and
Congress might then be able to regain its rightful place in
government, as provided for in the Constitution, but largely snatched
away by Bush and even by some of his predecessors.
The congress is a co-equal with the president and the court. The |
president makes American foreign policy although he must ask permission
of congress before engaging in a war, "war" being nebulously defined.
Bush asked and received consent from both houses of congress for first
the war in Afghanistan and then the war in Iraq.
| Quote: | The grounds for impeachment of both I'd choose is the fact of their
lying to the American people when urging war against Iraq.
What's the "lie" supposed to be? The Britsh government to this day backs |
up the 16 words that Bush said that got Joe Wilson so bug eyed.
| Quote: | This is now
documented in a recently declassified document siting evidence that
the Bush administration knew full well that reports of Iraq's links to
Al Qaeda were highly suspect.
You mean like the aspirin factory in The Sudan that Clinton flattened |
with cruise missiles because it was a WMD plant owned by a bin Laden
buddy and was using a technology for WMDs only used by Iraq? Richard
Clarke still stands by all that in his book, "Against All Enemies".
| Quote: | They had no reliable reports, in fact,
of such links -- they lied to make war with a sovereign nation appear
justifiable:
I've always wondered why Iraq and Saddam are such a big a deal when |
Clinton's bombing the hell out of the Balkans was OK, his invasion of
Haiti was OK, his chasing of Adid around Somalia was OK, etc. Does
Saddam get a free pass for some reason?
If there was ever anyone who had earned being invaded and arrested, it
is Saddam. He was the only person in power who had used WMDs in combat
and the only one to use WMDs against his own people. He'd made war
against his neighbours in what appeared to be a clockwise fashion, Iran,
Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia. He was paying Palestinian families to send
their children off to Israel in order to blow Jews sitting in pizzerias
or queuing for the kino to charred bloody bits. As long as Saddam
remained in power, the status quo would exist in the Middle East. And
while Saddam isn't linked directly to 9/11, 9/11 happened in that status
quo environment.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weatherlawyer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Blue Hornet wrote:
| Quote: |
If lying to the public were an impeachable offense we'd have no government whatsoever.
So it is then? 'Cause you don't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lars Eighner
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
In our last episode,
<aoetm1lhomd7dns99veou7hina01fmk46n@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Charles Riggs
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
| Quote: | There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
I see nothing in the document that disallows the impeachment of both,
more or less simultaneously. After that it would be up to Congress to
appoint a more appropriate person to lead the nation until a new
election is held.
|
Well, no. Presidential succession is governed by written
statutes, permitted by written constitution provisions. In the
event that the offices of President and Vice President are
vacant simultaneously, for whatever reason, the Speaker of the
House assumes the office of President. This has never happened.
There is a provision that if the office of Vice President is
vacant, the President may appoint a replacement, subject to
confirmation by Congress.
The Nixon-Agnew situation provides a guide, although not part of
the written constitution. When the handwriting is on the wall,
the Vice President should be removed first and the President
should be allowed to appoint someone as Vice President who will
be acceptable by the concensus of Congress, everyone
understanding that the new Vice President will become a
"caretaker" president once the President is removed. This of
course can only happen if the president is sufficiently in touch
with reality and sufficiently concerned with the welfare of the
Republic.
Cold comfort in present circumstances, I know.
--
Lars Eighner usenet@larseighner.com http://www.larseighner.com/
"Any activity becomes creative when the doer cares about doing it
right, or doing it better." --John Updike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:07 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net>
wrought:
| Quote: | There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
|
Since Nixon, calls for impeachment have been the pre-eminent feature
of all presidential second terms -- Reagan's (Iran-Contra), Clinton's
(Monicagate and Whitewater) and now Dubya's (Plamegate, now
metastasising into the Whole Iraq Thing). Wouldn't it be simpler and
make for a better-run country to allow no second terms, while perhaps
extending the term of office from four to five years?
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick Wotnaz
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Ross Howard <gguiri@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:foium1pnhh661vg6dh9j8u00uqtkf7jf5m@4ax.com:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:07 +0000, Charles Riggs
chriggs@éircom.net> wrought:
There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the
president of the United States when necessary, a scary thought
with Bush only because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the
Constitution also allows for the removal of the vice president.
Since Nixon, calls for impeachment have been the pre-eminent
feature of all presidential second terms -- Reagan's
(Iran-Contra), Clinton's (Monicagate and Whitewater) and now
Dubya's (Plamegate, now metastasising into the Whole Iraq
Thing). Wouldn't it be simpler and make for a better-run country
to allow no second terms, while perhaps extending the term of
office from four to five years?
|
Tomorrow is election day in Virginia, USA, where the governor is
allowed non-consecutive 5-year terms and where cries routinely go
up to have this extended to (at least) another term. You can't
please everyone.
Some people will cry out for impeachment for any reason they can
find. It shouldn't be necessary to take all such outcries
seriously. It's not as though the political landscape has actualy
been littered with impeached presidents.
--
rzed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salvatore Volatile
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:18 pm
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Martin Ambuhl wrote:
| Quote: | When the President's party, as now, controls
both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and 80% of the appelate
benches in the country,
|
Br Martin no doubt means the non-SCOTUS federal appellate bench, and I am
sure he's right (and, regardless, there's much to be learned from him).
However, "appellate benches in the country" might be taken to include the
state as well as federal appellate judiciary. His statement may well
apply to that larger set as well. ITLTC, but maybe Erk has some info. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ted Schuerzinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Somebody claiming to be Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote in
news:aoetm1lhomd7dns99veou7hina01fmk46n@4ax.com:
| Quote: | There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
|
What does any of this have to do with English usage?
--
Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
Oh Marge, anyone can miss Canada, all tucked away down there....
--Homer Simpson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Ted Schuerzinger <fedya@bestweb.spam> spake thusly:
| Quote: | Somebody claiming to be Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote in
news:aoetm1lhomd7dns99veou7hina01fmk46n@4ax.com:
There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
What does any of this have to do with English usage?
|
It's posted in alt.usage.english, and is written in English. Can't
get much closer than that.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin Ambuhl
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:26 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Ross Howard wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:07 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net
wrought:
There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
Since Nixon, calls for impeachment have been the pre-eminent feature
of all presidential second terms -- Reagan's (Iran-Contra), Clinton's
(Monicagate and Whitewater) and now Dubya's (Plamegate, now
metastasising into the Whole Iraq Thing). Wouldn't it be simpler and
make for a better-run country to allow no second terms, while perhaps
extending the term of office from four to five years?
|
No, you have it just backwards. Your "solution" would make matters
worse. The root of the problem is the Bricker amendment. People in
power are at their worst when they feel unaccountable for their actions.
The prohibition on third terms makes a second-term president free to
act without regard to the consequences. It is only to the extent that a
president identifies with his party, so that his actions have
consequences that he feels as his own, or that he feels unable to obtain
his results either secretly or by executive order and has a
non-compliant congress that he is bound to act responsibly.
In times when a unified legislative party opposes the executive it was
in the past possible to use "the power of the purse" to constrain
presidents. After Nixon's discovery of sequestration and of the
unexpected range of use of executive orders that power has eroded. The
threat of impeachment is the ossified US system's version of a
parliamentary vote of no confidence. It requires a much higher
threshold that a vote of no confidence even in situations like that of
Clinton, where the Republican leader in the house as early as January
1993 was asserting on the floor that he did not recognize the legitimacy
of the Clinton presidency. When the President's party, as now, controls
both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and 80% of the appelate
benches in the country, it is almost impossible to imagine talk of
impeachment, yet it is there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:41 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Ross Howard wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:07 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net
wrought:
There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
Since Nixon, calls for impeachment have been the pre-eminent feature
of all presidential second terms -- Reagan's (Iran-Contra), Clinton's
(Monicagate and Whitewater) and now Dubya's (Plamegate, now
metastasising into the Whole Iraq Thing). Wouldn't it be simpler and
make for a better-run country to allow no second terms, while perhaps
extending the term of office from four to five years?
People now call for impeachment the minute they think someone has been |
elected president. One of the reasons why 9/11, and perhaps the previous
attack on the WTC, made it through is because al Qaeda attacked at a
transition point in presidents. It's the new guy who might be personally
ready for anything but must take time out to have all options vetted
that opens us up. We need to learn to transition not by stealing all the
W keys from keyboards and cutting the White House phone lines, but by
keeping important people in place for six months or even a year working
with the new people and getting them up to speed. Ever since the Bay of
Pigs, presidents have been rightly unwilling to just take the
recommendations of previous administrations without first taking many
months to review.
--
Why do sequels seem not to continue the story but instead retell the
original? I still want to see a real sequel to "Universal Soldier" where
the new girlfriend and the reanimated soldier who has to take a break
and recharge in a special recharge machine every few days, and might
melt if he gets too excited, learns to live within his limitations,
perhaps getting a job selling life insurance nine to five while starting
his own country western band as an evening outlet, finally taking the
time out in his life for romance and smelling the lovely flowers. Have
some guts Hollywood, turn a full out violent action movie into a woman
friendly romantic comedy sequel! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Aitken
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:29 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:41:17 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus
of recirculation')" <John.Methuen@magersfontein.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
Ross Howard wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:07 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@Ă©ircom.net
wrought:
There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
Since Nixon, calls for impeachment have been the pre-eminent feature
of all presidential second terms -- Reagan's (Iran-Contra), Clinton's
(Monicagate and Whitewater) and now Dubya's (Plamegate, now
metastasising into the Whole Iraq Thing). Wouldn't it be simpler and
make for a better-run country to allow no second terms, while perhaps
extending the term of office from four to five years?
People now call for impeachment the minute they think someone has been
elected president. One of the reasons why 9/11, and perhaps the previous
attack on the WTC, made it through is because al Qaeda attacked at a
transition point in presidents. It's the new guy who might be personally
ready for anything but must take time out to have all options vetted
that opens us up. We need to learn to transition not by stealing all the
W keys from keyboards and cutting the White House phone lines, but by
keeping important people in place for six months or even a year working
with the new people and getting them up to speed. Ever since the Bay of
Pigs, presidents have been rightly unwilling to just take the
recommendations of previous administrations without first taking many
months to review.
|
The British system makes an interesting contrast. Here, the new
government is expected to be up and running within 24 hours of the
election result being known. That is possible because we have
*permanent* civil servants, who, among other things, read all the
party manifestos as soon as they are issued. When the new ministers
get to their offices on day one, they find a legislative program based
on their manifesto, complete with draft Bills, waiting for them. The
one based on the *other* party's manifesto gets shredded. It is taken
as a matter of routine that the same people should be able to work on
policies based on diametrically opposite principles. The idea that it
is necessary to replace all the "important people" seems bizarre,
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From address is not read; to email me,
use don-aitken@clara.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:39 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
.... |
| Quote: | The grounds for impeachment of both I'd choose is the fact of their
lying to the American people when urging war against Iraq.
What's the "lie" supposed to be? The Britsh government to this day backs
up the 16 words that Bush said that got Joe Wilson so bug eyed.
|
And it's still not true. Anyway, Charles explains below that he was
talking about alleged links to al-Qaeda.
| Quote: | This is now
documented in a recently declassified document siting evidence that
the Bush administration knew full well that reports of Iraq's links to
Al Qaeda were highly suspect.
You mean like the aspirin factory in The Sudan that Clinton flattened
with cruise missiles because it was a WMD plant owned by a bin Laden
buddy and was using a technology for WMDs only used by Iraq? Richard
Clarke still stands by all that in his book, "Against All Enemies".
|
Possibly a blunder on Clinton's part, but on nowhere near the scale of
Bush's blunder/dishonesty.
Obaue: I'd write "the Sudan".
| Quote: | They had no reliable reports, in fact,
of such links -- they lied to make war with a sovereign nation appear
justifiable:
I've always wondered why Iraq and Saddam are such a big a deal when
Clinton's bombing the hell out of the Balkans was OK, his invasion of
Haiti was OK, his chasing of Adid around Somalia was OK, etc. Does
Saddam get a free pass for some reason?
|
OK with who? Clinton got a lot of criticism for bombing the Balkans
from the left--Noam Chomsky, say--though not from the center that I
remember.
I suspect some important differences were the lower casualties in these
operations, the shorter durations (the bombing about Kosovo was pretty
much over before we began to hear that claims of an genocide underway
had been exaggerated), and at least in the case of the Balkans, the
apparently positive results (ethnic Albanians back in Kosovo, no TV
reports of daily interethnic violence--though I don't know what's
actually happening).
The main difference may be the much lower casualties on the part of the
U.S. and our allies or minions. Since that didn't occur to you, maybe
you agree with me that Iraqi lives are worth as much as American lives.
| Quote: | If there was ever anyone who had earned being invaded and arrested, it
is Saddam.
|
Like James Follett, you inadvertently put your finger on one of the
arguments against you. If we could have "invaded" Saddam, I'd have
been all for it, but we invaded Iraq.
| Quote: | He was the only person in power who had used WMDs in combat
|
since 1945
| Quote: | and the only one to use WMDs against his own people.
|
since the American nuclear tests.
| Quote: | He'd made war
against his neighbours in what appeared to be a clockwise fashion, Iran,
Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia.
|
But not since he found out that other countries would unite against
him. And if you're claiming that we invaded Iraq to protect Jordan and
Syria, I'll know you're joking.
| Quote: | He was paying Palestinian families to send
their children off to Israel in order to blow Jews sitting in pizzerias
or queuing for the kino to charred bloody bits.
|
I agree that his being arrested and facing a bleak future is a good
thing--I'd call it one of the few bright spots in the picture. But I
don't think it was worth about 2,200 lives of the invading and
occupying armies and at least 25,000 Iraqi lives, likely well over
100,000, and probably a far greater number of wounds and mutilations,
with no end in sight and no reason to foresee much improvement in Iraq.
(For comparison, according to Wikipedia, Yugoslavia estimates the
casualties, not just deaths, of the NATO bombing of Kosovo at between
1,200 and 5,700, while NATO says the total of deaths was no more than
1,500. I wish twenty times the casualties would lead to twenty times
the protests.)
| Quote: | As long as Saddam
remained in power, the status quo would exist in the Middle East. And
while Saddam isn't linked directly to 9/11, 9/11 happened in that status
quo environment.
|
This could be said about any Middle Eastern government. Heck, I was
living in the same place in 2001 that I am now. Maybe I should move to
change the "status quo environment". In other words, I see no hint of
a connection between Saddam's ruling Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
--
Jerry Friedman admires the people who have the willpower not to respond. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:46 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Rick Wotnaz wrote:
| Quote: |
Ross Howard <gguiri@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:foium1pnhh661vg6dh9j8u00uqtkf7jf5m@4ax.com:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:07 +0000, Charles Riggs
chriggs@éircom.net> wrought:
There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the
president of the United States when necessary, a scary thought
with Bush only because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the
Constitution also allows for the removal of the vice president.
Since Nixon, calls for impeachment have been the pre-eminent
feature of all presidential second terms -- Reagan's
(Iran-Contra), Clinton's (Monicagate and Whitewater) and now
Dubya's (Plamegate, now metastasising into the Whole Iraq
Thing). Wouldn't it be simpler and make for a better-run country
to allow no second terms, while perhaps extending the term of
office from four to five years?
Tomorrow is election day in Virginia, USA, where the governor is
allowed non-consecutive 5-year terms
|
Actually, four years. As is true this year, Virginia's gubernatorial
election follows by one year the presidential election. I believe
only one twentieth-century Virginia governor served a second term,
and, as Rick says, it was not consecutive with the first.
| Quote: | and where cries routinely go
up to have this extended to (at least) another term. You can't
please everyone.
|
Being a lame duck on your first day in office has an inhibiting
effect. My own belief is that term limits for chief executives is a
form of stupidity, and I don't think it was just a coincidence that a
the first Republican administration after FDR put through the
amendment that limits the American president to two terms for life.[1]
| Quote: | Some people will cry out for impeachment for any reason they can
find. It shouldn't be necessary to take all such outcries
seriously. It's not as though the political landscape has actualy
been littered with impeached presidents.
|
Two so far, but no convictions, and one who resigned rather than be
impeached. History has looked quite unfavorably on the impeachment of
Andrew Johnson (whose trial before the Senate failed by one vote of
the two-thirds needed for conviction), and I don't think Clinton's
impeachment will look good in retrospect either. (Neither will the
conduct that got him impeached, but that's a different issue).
We may look back a year from now and see this period as the nadir of
Bush's presidency and popularity. I wish to God we had a better
president, but he's the only one we have[2], and I pray that he does a
wonderful job in the three years remaining to him, because I don't
think he's going anywhere and we could use a few miracles.
[1] I'm ignoring some of the nitpicks.
[2] Please, no President Cheney comments.
--
Bob Lieblich
More prayerful than hopeful |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in