He never should have been elected to begin with, he should have never been put into office when he clearly did not get the vote... Boy, do I even feel like ranting about this? So much to say on the issue and so little time to do it...oh and lied about important stuff, put us at war under false pretenses, has fucked our constitution up the ass constantly...boy the list gets kind of long.

Why the fuck can't we? Because how can you impeach a dictatorship?

I seem to remember something about lying to federal investigators being a big deal back in the Clinton days. Not so much anymore.
Actually, I think now it's only a crime ticket for a free rendition if you don't lie to cover the presidents ass.

I'm for more than impeachment. What Bush and Cheney did... the deliberate lies, the fabrication of "evidence" and the waging of an illegal war that has cost so many American (and Iraqi) lives; qualifies as high treason, a crime not protected by "executive priviledge."

I would like to see them tried for treason and then turned over to a world court for crimes against humanity. I would like to see them shoved in a hole so deep, that they never again see the light of day!

The thing is... even with all the evidence that has become public, our society as a whole has not risen up in outrage. I am perplexed by this... as I am by this administration rising to power in the first place. It seems America got what it wanted... and maybe what it deserves.

yeah, you'll get in more trouble speaking out against him than he and his administration ever will for the terrible things it's done. must be nice....

The president owns the U.S. Seriously. +1 on a good article, but no one has balls in this administration or congress.

Guys, they are not going to impeach him now. the next presidential election is in 2008, and the next president takes office in January 2009. They can't have an impeachment trial and all that whole process by then! ((roll eyes)) @ the idea of impeaching a president who terms out in 2008.

Plus, the main reason is that there is not enough of a majority in Congress to impeach the President.

Some of you young kids need to realize that our system is better than the Parliamentary system in which the majority party in Parliament automatically gets the Prime Minister (well in theory the Queen of England could appoint mickey mouse as prime minister, since the PM works for her, but she is supposed to appoint someone who has the support of Parliament). So in other words, Parliament never disagrees with the PM because they are always the same party. The Founding Fathers of the USA knew that this was a flawed system.

America has what is known as an adversarial system; the Congress checks the power of the President, the President checks the power of the Congress, and the Supreme Court checks both, they all check the power of all others. For example right now we have a Republican President, but a Democratic majority in Congress. You can't have that in a Parliamentary system.

In a parliamentary system you have to form "coalitions", lest you risk creating "instability". In the American system, you have a majority and a minority and they fight, and that's how legislation gets written. The President can veto, but his veto can be overridden with a 2/3 majority in Congress. In England, the Monarch can veto parliament, and Parliament has no recourse.

Of course, the Monarchy has not used that option in hundreds of years, but as the founding fathers said in The Federalist Papers, "because the King has not used a certain power does not mean he does not have it."

btw I was against the War in Iraq from day 1 -- though I do support what we did in Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda, and I do support bombing Pakistan and Iran -- and I was a Veteran for John Kerry for President. But this talk of impeaching the President when he's going to be replaced in a year is silly. He hasn't committed "high crimes and misdemeanors". Just because many of us disagreed with the war initially, and now a majority disagrees with the war, does not make it criminal. Congress gave the President permission in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, "the Congress shall have the Power...to declare War".

So really this is Hillary Clinton's war, since she voted for it in the Senate. I know that Kerry did too, but at the time we didn't have a viable alternative, now we do: Barack Obama and Ron Paul.

A vote for hillary is a vote to stay in Iraq since that's what she wants to do.

--Brian

not true.

Shut up and get off my lawn punk.


Oh and this . . .

is pure gold. Not really worth addressing but funny. You should be a comedian.

Ramblin' ramblin' man... Damn.

Anyhow, I think you're right off about the "high crimes and misdemeanors." Firstly, you put the cart before the horse. These crimes were committed, and those lies were told, expressly for the resultant "permission" (your word) from Congress. Even were that not true, no part of what Congress voted on gives the President status above the law. If it does, quote me verbatim or no points.

Secondly, war has not formally been declared, and for all my breath I can't understand why this keeps getting repeated. What Bush & Co. did/are doing/will have done is ILLEGAL, period.

Not to mention that we're talking about the Plame outting here.



Silly Brian, Reading Comprehension is for kids.

Come on, we're not that far down the road to fascism. Right now that only applies to brown people.

Worse, he failed to research his audience and gain valuable insight into their makeup, experience, vocations, avocations, and unwillingness to tolerate overarching generalizations that ignore both the value and shortcomings of our governmental structure as well as the importance of ensuring we remain a country of law.