| |
Impeach Bush now
Unmasking a CIA agent is bad, lying to Congress worse. With each U.S. death in
Iraq, the case against the President grows stronger, says JOHN MacARTHUR
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPPrint/LAC/20031009/COMACA09/TPComment/
Now that the U.S. government’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq has, in effect,
confirmed an obvious truth -- that President George W. Bush and his closest
advisers promoted a non-existent nuclear and chemical weapons threat from Iraq
to justify a war -- an obvious question presents itself: Why aren’t Americans
talking seriously about impeachment?
After all, Mr. Bush now stands plausibly accused of the lofty crime of
subverting the Constitution of the United States -- that is, lying to Congress
about an imminent danger to the American people in order to collect enough votes
to authorize his corporate/imperial project in Iraq. Yet, outside of a few brave
remarks from Senator Robert Graham, and the considered opinion of Watergate
stool pigeon John W. Dean, almost nobody dares speak the “I” word.
Is the notion really so preposterous? Reasonable people can disagree about the
“intent” of the founding fathers when they wrote the clause that states that
“the president . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment for and
conviction of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Edit: read on by following the link above...
This one has lots of debate favorites: impeachment, constitutional
interpretation, etc. It’s worth a read.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
