Re: Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84

>>>>> "michael" == Michael Zara <[email protected]> writes:

  michael> I tend to agree with Bijan's thrust here.  

I don't want to know about, much less agree with anything called "Bijan's
thrust"... Egads!

           Impeaching Clinton, and
  michael> the whole Starr Chamber, was a huge misuse of the system for
  michael> political gain, and impeaching even Bush, now, would drag things
  michael> further down.  

Really? Gross violations of the law governing the use of international force
isn't a high crime? And, politically, it wouldn't be an improvement from our
progressive point of view to see a president impeached for engaging in the kind
of reckless warmongering Bush has been at since September?

Gee, sounds like a win to me. But then maybe I take Chomsky too seriously when
he said that, under the precedent the U.S. established at the Nuremburg Trials,
every president since WWII should be hung?

           If practiced as a regular tool of politics, it could
  michael> really destabilize the society and nation.  

Destabilize it for the better or for the worse remains an open question. I for
one would be willing to take the gamble of, say, a constitution convention.

  michael> Besides, on the general principle that failure to disclose past
  michael> crimes constitutes fraud on the electorate, shouldn't a president be
  michael> impeachable for them, if really serious, or such that the people
  michael> wouldn't have elected him (ha!) if they knew.  Even the "fraud"
  michael> itself would be a prior crime.

I'm pretty sure that's what I said yesterday. I guess it's worth more coming
from a lawyer? :>

Kendall
--
There's no such thing as magic, only science and jazz.