 |
|
| You can search the entire main site (over 1,000 articles) here. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name. |
|
|
|
| |
| "Should Bush be impeached?" | Login/Create an Account | 5 comments |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Should Bush be impeached? (Score: 1)
by DonnerUndBlitz on Saturday, March 04 @ 12:16:34 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) | If cantankerous, bitter liberals cannot beat President Bush at the polls, then utilize a sophistic machination and impeach him. What a cowardly, pusillanimous manner in which to behave. (Besides which there is no impeachable offense, or the libs in Congress would have used it ages ago.)
BUSH 52%
KERRY 48%
Live with it.
(Second posting; my first commentary -- same words -- was deleted . . . strange? Censorship from the First Amendment liberals?)
|
|
|
Re: Should Bush be impeached? (Score: 1)
by Andrew (Use the Write to Us Link) on Saturday, March 04 @ 18:02:17 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://modelminority.com | Sorry about your earlier posting... I replied to it twice and then tried to delete one of the replies but it knocked out the whole tree. So I'm glad you reposted.
First, there's no question that there is sufficient cause to bring impeachment proceedings against Bush for conducting a warrantless wiretapping program in probable violation of the FISA law [uchicagolaw.typepad.com], as well as other high crimes and misdemeanors [www.thenation.com]. The fact that the Republican-controlled Congress is now trying to change the law to make it legal for him to continue the program does not change the legal status of what he has already done. But it does explain why "the libs in Congress" have not been able to bring impeachment proceedings against Bush "ages ago." In case you haven't noticed, House Democrats have not had a voting majority to bring impeachment proceedings against Bush at any time during his term. Instead, Congress is controlled by Republicans who, as shown by their legislative response to the FISA scandal, are more interested in covering Bush's ass than in holding Bush accountable for a probable violation of federal law.
And second, how exactly was it any less "sophistic," "cowardly" or "pusillanimous" for the Republican-controlled Congress, having been unable to beat President Clinton at the polls, to impeach him for offenses arising out of his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a matter which was of absolutely no importance to the public interest? |
|
|
|
71.17% (1365)
