TIME for Impeachment?

TIME should be interesting reading this week

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003567882

NEW YORK In the upcoming issue of Time magazine, out Friday, columnist Joe Klein considers what he calls the Bush administration’s “epic collapse.” He concludes with a statement that may make some wonder if he is hinting that the president ought to be impeached.

Klein claims, in referring to the president, that he has “tried to be respectful of the man and the office” but now he recognizes that the “defining sins” of his administration “are congenital: they’re part of his personality. They’re not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.”

The Time columnist declares that the three major Bush problems of the year “precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).

 

Would there be a benefit to the Dems impeaching W now? On the one hand, a slow bleed for the next two years would grease the wheels for a big win in 2008, but on the other hand by that point all the Republcan candidates could have all distanced themselves from W greatly.

Do you think the first would outweight the second?

 

If he's impeached, wouldn't Cheney become President?

 

You know, you're right. In that case impeach way. The Dems would win in a landslide if Darth Cheney were in charge for two years.

 

How does replacing U.S. Attorneys, which every president has had the right to do, qualify as a reason for impeachment? Also, how do systematic problems with the VA system that existed long before this admin was in office qualify as a reason for impeachment?

 

I'd do it Nixon-like and have Cheney resign, appoint some less-offensive senate-confirmable schmoe and then let the prez step down.

 

How did a blow job in the Oval Office qualify as a reason for impeachment?

 

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

 

For the first, it appears a number of the firings were for political, not performance issues, and the timing, while some are investigating Republican officials seems highly suspect.

On the second, if they inherited the problem, they haven't really done anything in the last six years to fix it. In fact, they've cut funds for veterans, especially those who needed treatment after coming back from the middle east.

 

It didn't.

 

Any president can fire a US attorney at any time. What happened here was not a crime.

Any president prior to Bush could have fixed the VA problem. Again, not a crime.

 

I think it was William F. Buckley (a flaming liberal if there ever was) who said that if W was a British PM he would have already been forced to resign.

As of now, there has been no proof that the US attorneys thing violated any laws. However, we don't know the whole truth, do we?

As far as having a "smoking gun" reason to impeach, you're right AQB, there really isn't one - right now.