In article <1183889934.967543.77260@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Soldier in a Combat Zone wrote:
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Jul 8, 11:35 am, ZnU wrote:
> > In article <0001HW.C2B59B420071F3F4F0182...@news.comcast.net>,
> > George Graves wrote:
> > > > Read all about it, here:http://Muvy.org
> >
> > > OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
> > > legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
> >
> > Wikipedia has a nice list of potential
> > charges:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Rati
> > o...
> > s_for_impeachment
> >
> > The ones that potentially involve explicit violations of US law:
> >
> > 1) Warrantless surveillance (violates FISA).
>
> Legal, under the law.
My intention was not to argue every one of these points individually,
which would be extremely tedious, but merely to point out that Bush is
accused of actually violating the law (which is impeachable), not simply
of incompetence (which, as George pointed out, isn't).
As I noted at the end of the previous post, any of the issues I listed
would serve just fine if the political will was there. Impeachment
doesn't have to meet a "reasonable doubt" standard, there are no
appeals, and Bush is wildly unpopular.
[snip]
> If the House pushed impeachment then you will see civil war in the
> US. Too many Bush supporters are fed up with the cry babies of the
> left. All the left understands is violence, look at the way that they
> are scared to death of the Muslims....
Seriously, don't be absurd. You really think anyone is going to commit
violence on behalf of this buffoon? He's increasingly seen as a
liability even by his own party.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006 |