Impeacheable? Bush?

Enjoy!

What about some facts? Twin Peaks is almost unintelligible and English Major believes in padding her posts-- A clear case of transcribed Logorrhea.

l. As has been already noted, it is highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would ever impeach President Bush since the chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, Sensenbrenner, would never entertain the possiblity. Of course, if the Democrats were to regain the House, it would be possible that there would be a movement since Conyers, who is nuttier than a fruitcake, would become the Democrat Chairman( he has seniority)

2. The takeover of the House by the Democrats in 2006--a matter near and dear to the Screamin Howard Dean types--is nigh near impossible. Fair Vote has pointed out that fewer than 30 seats in the House would be "competitive" since both parties, Democrat and Republican, gerrymandered as many districts as possible to protect their incumbents.

3. November 2006 is a year away--an eternity in political terms.

In the meanwhile, the left wing does not appear to be aware that President Bush has already accomplished moves for the "ages". He has nominated and had approved the superb Judge Roberts and will soon see Judge Alito placed on the USSC.

Most seem to be unaware that he has also nominated a man who will certainly further the general objectives of the Republican Party- Namely, the replacement for the Maestro- Alan Greenspan--who happens to be Ben Bernanke.

The USSC loaded with conservatives and the Fed. headed by Bernanke.

Those who know little about the massive importance of these two institutions are unaware of the implications connected to the appointments.

Yup. Y'all are screwed for eternity. Bush will not be impeached, mostly because no one in Congress has any cojones.

Bush is setting up his empire and it won't matter if he's prez or not. Likely ole Jeb Bush will continue the die-nasty. Yup. Jeb in 08.

Too bad Greenspan will be replaced. I will have to research Bernanke. Don't know much about him. Do you have any links to him? I guess I can research it myself.....

I am very much afraid that, at this juncture, it is not a matter of cojones.

Again- Representative Sensenbrenner is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House. It is necessary for that committee to begin impeachment proceedings. Sensenbrenner agrees with President Bush regarding the conduct of the war and the disposition of the intelligence on Iraq before the war-

Cojones have nothing to do with it.

As for Ben Bernanke, he is a marvelous choice to succeed the Maestro- Alan Greenspan--As a graduate of MIT and Harvard; the chairman of the Economics Department at one of the USA's best Universities- Princeton, a member of the Fed. Board and President Bush's leading Economic Advisor, he has impeccable credentials.

Twin peaks,

I hijacked your tagline -the one about the cracker who invented the anthem. Do you know who said that? Thanks :wink:

Howz the weather in SF tonight?

Impeachment might only be possible if
GWB gets a blowjob
Like Clinton did
Would someone please give Georgie one? Consider it a patriotic act.

Clinton ruined a dress.
Bush ruined a nation.

You go first ! Ughhhhhhhhhh! I am only glad I read this B4 dinner!

I know. It would have to be the ULTIMATE sacrifice. But I couldn't do it. I'm sure some holy roller would volunteer cause God/Jesus told them to do it.

twin peaks nikki is, I am very much afraid, totally misinformed. If she would take the trouble to review the process involved in impeachment, shw would discover that the impeachment process can only be begun when EVIDENCE is brought to the Judiciary Committee of the House. As twin peaks nikki and englishmajor may recall, that task is usually performed by a special prosecutor.

In asmuch as there is no special prosecutor working at this time on anything to do with President Bush and inasmuch as the Judiciary Committee's Chairman is Rep. Sensenbrenner- A stalwart Republican--the chances for an "impeachment" are slim and none.

Now, if there could be a suit filed against President Bush, such as the one which Paula Jones filed against Bill Clinton and if President Bush would be deposed, as CLinton was, and if President Bush were to lie as President Clinton did in the Paula Jones deposition, well, then an impeachment might well be possible.

Failing that, it is a pipe dream!

GWB = George Wants Blowjob, wants to b impeached.

good one!

So tell me, how is all this blowjob talk useful in any way? Do you think it helps convince an undecided voter? I can see it repulsing an undecided voter.

A special prosecutor is not required for impeachment. The fact that you have a partisan Republican wo is, in effect, involved in the cover-up, adds nothing to the question of whether or not Bush committed impeachable offenses. Even a blind partisan like Sensenbrenner could not stop a majority from beginning an impeachment inquiry.

Guess what, we have an election in 2006. Maybe you forgot about that.

Indeed, there is an election in 2006. We shall see what occurs. But your commentary about the lack of need of a prosecutor is way off the mark.

I am not sure that you understand that any investigation which would lead to any impeachment must gather evidence.

You may be unaware that Ken Starr, the attorney appointed to investigate the Lewinsky matter, was appointed on Jan. 16th 1998 and the Starr Report was not submitted to Congress until Sept. 9th 1998 and not followed up by an impeachment until Dec. 11, 1998.

And of course, you are aware that any investigation must find clear evidence that an impeachable act has indeed been committed. At present, I find that any claims that President Bush be impeached based on partisan politics but I am open to hearing the SPECIFIC ACTS THAT CAN BE PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

After nearly two years of hearing political buffons use the impeachment word I have yet to see evidence of the kind that can be used in a court of law. The usage of the I word is, of course, based on the fact that a large number of the populace does not know what it really means.

a lawyer in Illinois was beginning impeachment process on Bush. Don't know where it stands now.

www.counterpunch.org has the whole legal document.

GWB= George Wets Bed

now, that's just the kind of response I expect to get on unable2know.com

Really funny response. Probably true.
But did you check out the link above?

Oh. That's right. I forgot - it might entail too much reading for the average american.

The link on "Bush's Impeachment" was NOT on the that topic. It was on Richard Pryor.

Again, I am asking for someone to give me a charge with evidence that would lead to an impeachment.

By the way, English Major, I would like to suggest that you, A CANADIAN, pay closer attention to the bizarre going ons in your own province instead of gossiping about President Bush without giving any real evidence.

I do hope that you are aware that in your province, British Columbia, it has been reported that( Source-Chicago Sun Times- Tuesday November 22nd, 2005 - P. 34) GOVERNMENT HANDLERS ASSIGNED TO FOLLOW PEDOPHILES IN CANADA.
Corrections officials in British Columbia have quietly begun to hire handlers to follow released pedophiles EVERYWHERE THEY GO, in what is believed to be a first for the Canadian justice system.

end of quote

I don't believe you can find anything as bizarre in the US Justice System.

I would respectfully suggest that you spend some time trying to reform a justice system which apparently has gone off the tracks in your country before you take time to meddle in a government you do not even vote for.

Aren't you the one at the top of this page giggling at talk72000's childish nonsense like a little schoolgirl? ("good one!") You seemed quite appreciative of his contributions then.

Next time, you might try making a permanent link to the story you are referring to, instead of simply linking to the front page of the website. You're going to be hard-pressed to get anyone to follow your link to some far-left rag, but virtually nobody is going to go searching for some wacko story you find interesting.

-----

BTW, has anyone ever told you you are simply enamoring? ... just a joy to be around? ... a delight?


Didn't think so.