I agree, the argument on "supposed lies" was unjustified as I posted a link which tied evidence/intelligence in favor of Bush,...but I can agree Bush didn't look at all evidence which was crucial... Other arguments is weak on technicality... The issue in front of us is the only valid reason for impeachment, and frankly,...It looks like it is justfiable. Should it be done?....Think about lessons learned. We need to think of the big picture beforehand... We need to think about before, during, and after...
Imagine the precedent it would set if he gets away with it. Every future president would basically be able to say anyone in the executive branch can ignore a congressional subpoena. There must be consequences with which he has abused power with such impunity.
I'd love to be proved wrong, but Bush isn't going to be impeached. First, there's the question of "What about Dick?" OK, so you impeach him first. That takes 2-3 months. Then Bush gets to appoint another guy and he would pick someone just as reprehensible. Second, Repubs would never vote for simultaneous impeachment, as that would put Pelosi in the WH. Third, by the time all this played out, we're in the middle of the election. Best case scenario: Get rid of Cheney, get Rove, get Gonzales. Get Bush after he leaves office on any number of criminal charges... or war crimes... which would have to be done by the International community because Repubs would go even more nuts if Dems tried it. Somehow, he does have to be held accountable in this life, not just by historians. Regardless of what happens, we're going to need a "Truth Commission" to look at all the crap over the 8 years. Sheesh... just like Third World countries do after they get rid of a dictator.
Like our President, the Dem. Congress will be a whole lotta talk and not a lotta walk. I suspect that the Dems will take the WH and increase their margins in both Houses in 2008, so their means has an ends. Their campaign slogan should be "We may be Incompetent, but at least we are not Grossly Incompetent!"
Seems Rim was right about the DoJ having the president's back on this. -- via TPM-- Harriet Miers had some backup. The Los Angeles Times points out something that we didn't stress yesterday about Miers' refusal to appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing today even though under subpoena. And that's that Miers and the White House are relying on a new opinion by the Justice Department, dated July 10th, that argued that "the President and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional committee." The opinion was described in White House counsel Fred Fielding's letter to Miers' attorney. the LA times article I'll gladly write an opinion on Tuesday to let you off the hook Thursday! These guys have NO shame!
