No, really, how many?

[trdsf]

So this morning I was listening to Attorney Field Marshal Gonzo's stuttery explanation of how 'mistakes were made' in the firing of several US Attorneys who happened to be actually doing their job rather than laying off Republicans and investigating only Democrats, about how information mystically made it's way from DoJ to the House, and how he was

Comments

[chilayse]

My father used to be an extreme Bush supporter. (He's also a devout sunday christian. -.- And so on..) He doubts Bush's capability..

Since he likes to talk about politics I'll ask him your specific questions....and see what he says.

[nsingman]

I'm no Bushie, though as a libertarian, I have roughly as much contempt for Democrats as I do for Republicans. I believe that Bush deserves to be impeached. Any president who usurps powers not granted by the Constitution deserves impeachment. Bush is an awful president - a spendthrift and a warmonger, and you'd be hard pressed to find any of my fellow libertarians who support him. His administration has lied, broken laws, and gotten us into a wholly unnecessary, unjust and unconstitutional war.

However, the Democrats are in charge of the House of Representatives, which is where a bill of impeachment must begin. Unlike the Senate, the House rules enable the majority to do pretty much anything it wants. Anything! There is no filibuster, and the Republicans in the House can stand on their heads, scream or boycott and it couldn't stop the majority. So why won't the Democrats impeach Bush? Even if the Senate would never convict him, it would make a strong political statement.

[trdsf]

The problem, of course, is how to make impeachment look legitimate rather than just tit-for-tat retaliation for the Clinton witchhunt, utterly regardless of how much Chimpy deserves impeachment. And that problem is exacerbated by a media that's beholden to the business interests that have the biggest stake in keeping Dumbya propped up.

Do he and Cheney deserve impeachment? Hell yes they do, and a nice long stint in The Hague for a war crimes trial. But the current Realpolitik makes that not especially possible. At this stage, it's enough to slowly and correctly start the investigations and let the snowball build itself. Once the press smells blood and gets a few attention-grabbing headlines out there, their corporate masters will be more interested in the hot news and the profits those generate than in protecting their boy in Washington.

[trdsf]

That is probably the most accurate (if verbose) translation of sieg heil that I've ever seen. ;)

[trdsf]

The heart of their position, maybe. It's not an argument--an argument permits give and take and listens to the other side, at the very least to form an effective refutation of it.

[johnpalmer]

Re: Newt's hypocrisy, it depends on *why* you want to name him a hypocrite. Some things (pursuing the President for being deceitful (but not quite lying) about sex while having an affair) aren't hypocritical. Some things (letting the whole affair turn into a "see how sleazy Clinton is?" Aren't you all grossed out?") are definitely hypocritical.

[trdsf]

Sure, pursuing Clinton for covering up his affair is hypocritical--he was coverng up his own at the same time.