Re: Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84

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

  >> Really? Gross violations of the law governing the use of international
  >> force isn't a high crime?

  michael> yes, but this is not what Clinton was impeached for.  That's my point
  michael> about abuse of the system.

Of course it wasn't. 

I was responding to your claim that impeaching (or attempting to) *Bush* now
would "drag things further down". That depends, in my view, on the bill of
impeachment; if it included 'violations of international law' pertaining to
Afghanistan, I think that would be way cool. Of course, it's politically
impossible.

It only recently (as embarassing as this is to confess) occurred to me that if
some political crisis -- such that an impeachment of Bush might provoke --
resulted in the convening of a new constitutional convention, the *whole damn
thing* would be up for grabs, which would prove very interesting.

Kendall
--
In this world there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one
wants, and the other is getting it. --Oscar Wilde