November 09, 2006

Can Pelosi control it?

Former Brooklyn Rep. Liz Holtzman is promoting her new book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens. In it, she says Bush could be tried on the following items:

  • lying about weapons of mass destruction to justify invading Iraq,
  • allowing the torture of prisoners,
  • leaking classified information,
  • botching the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.
Needless to say, proof would have to be established for the first three items -- proof which I really doubt will be discovered. And regarding the third bit, if Bush can be tried for doing that, then can't at least also the New York Times??

And since when do we impeach presidents for "botching" a response to a natural disaster? What criteria do we use for "botch"? What if President Bush hadn't bothered to consult with Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco and just went ahead and sent troops into the state? Wouldn't that have violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which forbids the use of federal troops for law enforcement purposes within the borders of the United States? Sure seems like it. So, had Bush done that to not "botch" the hurricane response, Holtzman would most probably be opining about "dictator" George Bush who violated American law by acting like a "king," sending the military into a region within the US. Count on it.

The real question is whether incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can control John Conyers, who looked into impeaching President Bush as far back as 2003.

Posted by Felix at November 9, 2006 08:46 PM | TrackBack

Comments

I really would be amused if the Democrats try to impeach Bush in the next two years. Even if pigs started flying and an impeachment attempt succeeded, the only thing the Democrats would have accomplised is to a) virtually guarantee at least one attempt at impeachment of the next Democrat to hold the Presidency and b ) hand the Republicans a tailor-made issue to ride back into control of the House, Senate, and Presidency in the next election. I don't think they are that stupid. Or if they are, so much the better that they display their stupidity and get voted out of office.

Posted by: JR Richardson at November 9, 2006 10:25 PM

She's an idiot. The President can unilaterally disclose any intelligence information he chooses. When he does it, it's not "leaking". Fair or not, that's the law.


Posted by: Duffy at November 10, 2006 07:59 AM

Duffy, if that's true, why didn't Bill Clinton break the seal on the truth about the JFK assassination and the Roswell crash? As for whether the Dems move to impeach, look to Aesop's fable of the scorpion and the frog:

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

The scorpion replies, "It's just my nature."

Posted by: G Rex at November 10, 2006 09:53 AM

Bush helped Dems defeat Conservatives so he could push through his father NEW World Order agenda. THE FENCE ACROSS MEXICO that BUSH fought against will not be built. BOB Gates who used to work for Daddy Bush as head of CIA will do what the father wants. Gates just left the James Baker "Iraq Commision". The plan is to divide Iraq into 3 states. Joe Biden is pushing this " solution". Why do you think the Dems have take impeachment off the table. Because they now like Bush & Dick Cheney. Nancy Peloci's father was the Mayor of Balitmore and connected with the Mafia during the same time John Kenndy was assasinated & BUSH senior was with the CIA. Connect the dots...

Posted by: fooled me once at November 12, 2006 03:13 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?