0
   

WILL REPUBLICANS DEMAND BUSH AND CHENEY RESIGN

 
 
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 04:27 pm
This is an interesting and provocative piece. This action may make excellent sense to the Republicans.

November 13, 2006 at 11:58:23

Ultimately, Republicans Will Force Bush/Cheney Resignation

by Rob Kall

http://www.opednews.com


The democrats "have a constitutional duty," as Nancy Pelosi has said, to investigate--- criminal wrongs, offenses to the constitution...

In the coming months, as the Democrat-led congress moves forward, dealing with the war, unemployment, health care, medicare drugs, immigration (ignoring flag burning, gay marriage, and other BS the republicans wasted whole sessions on) they will also be convening hearings. The Democrats will force the release of reports that the Republicans held back from the public. They will begin to shed line on the dark recesses that the Republicans hid.

The truth will see the light of day.

Once the dirty truth comes out-- that Bush was a criminal and constitutional violator in SO many ways, the 31% rating for Bush that we see today will look huge. The American public will demand that something be done. They will insist upon the rescue of the constitution.

I believe that there will be more network anchors who, emboldened by the tough talk of first and foremost, Keith Olbermann, but also Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs. These gutsy media spokesman will rally the American people to demand that the perpetrators face justice, that the abuses to the constitution and the bill of rights be righted (or, with the current climate, "lefted.")

The Republican party will be faced with a disastrous 2008 election and they will have little choice but to cut the damage-- the slowly, but strongly growing media storm of outrage over the crimes and abuses of Bush, Cheney and their worst appointees, particularly Gonzalez.

The Republicans will be forced to take a walk to the white House-- at least 15 or 16 of them-- and they will tell Bush and Cheney, that they have to resign, because the Republican party will be obliterated if they don't clean up their own mess. And Bush and Cheney are their mess.

It will be oh so delicious to see the day that Bush and Cheney resign because the Republicans told them to. Either that, or the Dems will take an additional 50 house seats and 15-20 MORE senate seats in 2008. At that point, the two party system could be replaced by new parties.

It is a certainty, the Republicans will not allow that to happen. The senators will go to Bush and Cheney and tell them they have to resign-- and fast.

This won't happen overnight, but it won't take too long. There are already a few Republicans who have expressed reservations. Expect the ones who will be facing elections in 2008 to be under more pressure to get on board, and the few remaining moderates remaining on the Republican side of the aisle.

Don't expect every Democrat to get on board. Joe, the red, Lieberman might hold out just to annoy the Dems, or to hold out for a deal of his own. Seriously though, that is VERY unlikely, with his constituent base.

Eventually though, Bush will get a visit. Almost certainly, it will be a real, actual visit, from a big enough group of Republicans to make it clear to George and Dick that they really do have a choice-- face impeachment or resign.

Of course, when Bush gets the visit from the Republicans, he will drag James Baker from wherever he is, to negotiate a deal. Cheney will pull out his shotgun and shoot at them, probably at a more moderate one, like Arlen Spector or Olympia Snowe who will surely be amongst the resignation demand team.

The Dems will be straining at the leash to take any offer. That will be a mistake. Bush and Cheney do NOT deserve to get off with just resigning. They must plead guilty to crimes. They must do at least some time-- so they lose their right to vote. They must, as part of their "deal" agree to never speak in public, to not give speeches, to give all claims to all monies in any bank accounts they did not have upon entering office. They should pay fines consisting of all their assets. They should be put in house arrest-- on Bush's remote ranch. Government security agents should be supplied to keep all visitors out except family, and to keep Bush and Cheney in. Okay-- Cheney can do house arrest in some ranch in Wyoming.

There are those who would imprison these criminals for life, and those who believe they deserve execution as mass murderers. The US should also allow the world court to try them, with Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Tommy Franks, and a number of the generals who allowed or even observed torture and other war crimes. The US owes the world access to the criminals who got out of control. We need to clear our Karma. Allowing justice to take its course-- true justice, not the perverted, despicable thing that Gonzalez, Yoo and company perpetrated upon this nation and this planet.

On the other side, James Baker and Bush's few remaining friends will negotiate on behalf of Bush. Some of my wish list of sentencing elements will fall. I hope not many. They are designed to prevent Bush or Cheney from contining to do damage or to benefit from their crimes.

The American people will see the light and they will make at least most of these things come to pass. And it will be sweet to see Bush and Cheney and friends do the perp walks they so richly deserve.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,459 • Replies: 23
No top replies

 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 06:00 pm
With the truth given the light of day and W shackled there is no need for impeachment as he is on his way out 2008. Republicans will not want W impeached as the repercussions are great for they will be tarnished by the presence of an impeached president. Also they wouldn't want to change horses mid-stream.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 06:35 pm
The gist of the piece is that increasingly horrific details will be coming out about the administration, and that this will drag down the Republican party that continues to support Bush and Cheney. Thus, Republicans may wish stanch the bleeding by getting Bush and Cheney to resign.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 08:58 pm
Nancy Pelosi would be president if both W and Cheney resign. That would be even a worse scenario for the Republicans.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 09:06 pm
Replace Cheney before he and Bushie get impeached and that keeps Pelosi from becoming President. Simple.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 09:13 pm
But the Democrats don't want to Impeach W.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 09:20 pm
talk, well just in case.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 10:01 pm
Democrats would rather have investigations and drag them down. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 09:42 am
With or without Bush and Cheney, there will be plenty of juicy hearings. Remember, during the Clinton years, there were tons of hearings over virtually nothing. The Dems, I think, will at least limit hearings to significant issues.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 10:07 am
Re: WILL REPUBLICANS DEMAND BUSH AND CHENEY RESIGN
Advocate wrote:

The democrats "have a constitutional duty," as Nancy Pelosi has said, to investigate--- criminal wrongs, offenses to the constitution...


Really?? I mean, that wasn't terribly obvious the last time dems had the whitehouse and Slick KKKlinton was selling hydrogen bomb secrets to the chicombs for DNC cash and bombing innocent countries to try to take scandals (his) off the front pages of American newspapers.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 10:08 am
Advocate wrote:
With or without Bush and Cheney, there will be plenty of juicy hearings. Remember, during the Clinton years, there were tons of hearings over virtually nothing. The Dems, I think, will at least limit hearings to significant issues.




BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahah hahaha hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha hahah hahah haha ha hah haaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaa.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 10:12 am
Gunga, I recall there were Rep hearings on that, and they proved to be a joke. The hearings were based on an overheard conversation at a party, which amounted to nothing.

Do you have a valid comment?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 10:41 am
Advocate wrote:
Gunga, I recall there were Rep hearings on that, and they proved to be a joke. The hearings were based on an overheard conversation at a party, which amounted to nothing.

Do you have a valid comment?



Yeah:

BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahah hahaha hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha hahah hahah haha ha hah haaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahahahahahahah hahaha hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha hahah hahah haha ha hah haaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahahahahahahah hahaha hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha hahah hahah haha ha hah haaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaa..................
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 10:48 am
Gunga, thanks for your usual intelligent reply.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 10:51 am
blueflame1 wrote:
Replace Cheney before he and Bushie get impeached and that keeps Pelosi from becoming President. Simple.


I'm no fan of impeachment, but just for the sake of going along with this....

If the Republicans plan to control the White House even if Bush and Cheney get impeached, then they better replace Cheney fast.

A replacement Vice President would have to be approved by the Senate, and in a few months the Senate will be Democratic. The Democrats can just stall on the Bush nominees for Vice President until Bush and cheney are impeached and convicted, then watch Pelosi take the Oval Office.

There is no rule that a Vice President must be replaced immediately, the next day. When Ford took office after Nixon, the hearings for Rockefeller as Vice President took some time.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 11:38 am
Face it: if they couldn't remove SlicKKK, they couldn't remove Hitler, Mussolini, or Nero, much less George W. Bush. The whole impeachment idea/process is permanently broken for better or worse, and in this case its for the better.

These next two years are going to let the American people get a really good look at the real face of the de-mokkker-rat party and that should pretty much be the end of it.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 01:31 pm
Re: WILL REPUBLICANS DEMAND BUSH AND CHENEY RESIGN
gungasnake wrote:
Advocate wrote:

The democrats "have a constitutional duty," as Nancy Pelosi has said, to investigate--- criminal wrongs, offenses to the constitution...


Really?? I mean, that wasn't terribly obvious the last time dems had the whitehouse and Slick KKKlinton was selling hydrogen bomb secrets to the chicombs for DNC cash and bombing innocent countries to try to take scandals (his) off the front pages of American newspapers.


whatever the condition that you have is, i'd bet that there's a pill for it being advertised on fox news somewhere in between the enzyte (now with a free tube of "topical rush"!! ) and liberty medical commercials.

btw, since you are so concerned about a president selling **** to the communist chinese, you'll be thrilled to know that your boy bushie has done himself proud;

Quote:
The U.S. national debt now stands at more than $8.3 trillion, of which more than $2 trillion is owned by foreigners. Since 2000, the percentage of U.S. public debt owed to foreigners has doubled.

Take China for example. As of March of this year, China held over $321 billion worth of U.S. Treasuries, up from the $60 billion it owned at the end of 2000. Similarly, Japan now owns $640 billion worth of U.S. Treasuries, up from $317.7 billion in December 2000. Lately, however, America has also borrowed heavily from oil exporter nations (as defined by the Department of the Treasury), which include many nations that despise America. Luminaries such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Indonesia and Iraq, and several other primarily Middle Eastern nations, now own $98 billion worth of U.S. debt.


www.thetrumpet.com

yep you must be a mighty proud republiCON... Laughing
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 02:30 pm
It is going to be a tough couple of years for the Reps. A lot more information highly critical of the administration is sure to come out. We will probably hear more about its outing a CIA covert operative for political purposes. Increasingly, rank and file Reps are going to be turning on Bush, Cheney, and company. I can't wait.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 02:45 pm
Here is an interesting piece about impeachment being a moral imperative.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mikael_r_061114_impeachment_3a_a_moral.htm
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 08:27 am
This is an interesting take on things.

Seems like the Republicans may need to reclaim their party (at least it's the take of this writer for The American Conservative)

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/images/magcover.jpg

IDEOLOGY HAS CONSEQUENCES ... link

Quote:
Bush rejects the politics of prudence.

by Jeffrey Hart

Many Republicans must feel like that legendary man at the bar on the Titanic. Watching the iceberg slide by outside a porthole, he remarked, "I asked for ice. But this is too much." Republicans voted for a Republican and got George W. Bush, but his Republican Party is unrecognizable as the party we have known.

Recall the Eisenhower Republican Party. Eisenhower, a thoroughgoing realist, was one of the most successful presidents of the 20th century. So was the prudential Reagan, wary of using military force. Nixon would have been a good secretary of state, but emotionally wounded and suspicious, he was not suited to the presidency. Yet he, too, with Henry Kissinger, was a realist. George W. Bush represents a huge swing away from such traditional conservative Republicanism.

But the conservative movement in America has followed him, evacuating prudence and realism for ideology and folly.


<snip>

Quote:
Buckley has said that Bush has been "engulfed" by Iraq and that if he had been a European prime minister he would have resigned by now. Other commentators known as conservatives have agreed: Andrew Sullivan, George Will, Francis Fukuyama. It is worth considering a statement by Richard Cheney:

Once you get to Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime, a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that going to have if it's set up by the American military there? How long does the United States military have to stay there to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens once we leave?

Smart man, that Cheney. The only problem is that he said that back in 1991 during the first Gulf War when he was secretary of defense in the administration of George H.W. Bush. At that time, Brent Scowcroft was national security adviser and James Baker was secretary of state. Recently, Scowcroft has said that though he has been friends with Cheney for more than 30 years, he no longer really knows him. What has happened to Cheney is anybody's guess.

It can't be 9/11. We know from many sources that Bush had decided to invade Iraq long before 9/11. In The Right Man, David Frum recounts being interviewed for a position by Michael Gerson, head Bush speechwriter and also policy adviser, not long after Bush became president. Gerson told Frum that Bush would topple Saddam. At that time nothing was being said about weapons of mass destruction.


<huuuuuuuge snip>



Quote:
Is Bush a conservative? Of course not.

<tiny snip>

The problem is that he is generally called a conservative, perhaps because he obviously is not a liberal. It may be that Bush, in the magnitude of his failure, defies conventional categories. But the word "conservative" deserves to be rescued. Against the misconception that Bush is a conservative, and appealing to Burke, all of our analytical energies must be brought to bear. I hope I have made a beginning here.


(it's worth reading the entire article if you're interested in political language/definitions)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » WILL REPUBLICANS DEMAND BUSH AND CHENEY RESIGN
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 02:29:29