RE: Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> Really just more info.
> His previous actions - as you said - are arguably, not conclusively,
> undermining his office.  But one could say that about most politicians. 
> It'd be, IMHO, quite a stretch to impeach him on that argument.

Why?

I mean, you think it wouldn't be a successful impeachment (duh, not with
the republicans in power in the house)? Or you think there wouldn't be a
convinction (also unlikely, I agree)? Or you think it's outside the bounds
of "proper" impeachment? But, as we've pointed out, impeachment is by its
nature rather fluid. It's a power of congress which they can use and
"abuse" (legit abuse, i.e., *permitted* abuse) as their needs dictate.

On the other hand, I do think that the Dems are weak and dumb enough for
it to be a supremely stupid move even if they had the House. It was a dumb
move for the Repubs back and clinton lacks the "war"time advantage of
Bush.

Cheers,
Bijan.