Booman knows he is in trouble:
"The Iraq Study Group put to a permanent end all the happy talk, spin, and talking points over Iraq. It's a disaster. Even if Bush listened to the ISG's recommendations it would still end in disaster. But, in that scenario, Bush would at least be able to buy some time. His refusal to take the gift is putting the Washington Establishment in a bind. The Brits are freaking out, the Republicans and Democrats are freaking out. They cannot and will not accept Bush's stance. Bush does not even have much of a constituency to argue his case. Rick Santorum would be willing to do it, but he is leaving office.
Rumsfeld turned on the war and is gone. Jane Harman lost her seat on Intelligence. Lieberman was kicked out of the Democratic Party. The Republicans have very little to gain by sticking with the President.
If Bush doesn't make a dramatic change of course, he will leave the GOP no choice but to accede to impeachment proceedings. The exact pretext for Bush and Cheney's removal, and the make-up of the caretaker government, will have to be quietly worked out, but you can be sure that the long knives are out and many power players are going to be spending the holidays plotting out scenarios that will get us out of this nightmare...and fast.
We can talk all we want about where the public is, or how we'd do better to focus on other things, but that is utter, total, hogwash. Nothing can be done until Bush recognizes that Iraq is a total loss and begins to act rationally. If he won't, and there are no signs that he will, then it won't be the Dems that are the leading force behind impeachment...it will his own father's people. It will be the big business Republicans. They don't give a damn whether the rank and file bought all that propaganda about Islamofascism or not. They'll send out the signal and the media will get on board.
All the Dems have to do is provide the direct constitutional crisis that leads to articles of impeachment and the rest will take care of itself.
You cannot ignore the wisemen of Washington on matters of urgent foreign policy."
2 comments:
I think this post summed it up for me. He was impeached when he admitted his lying, because that's what impeachment means in a technical sense -- to be found untrustworthy.
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]:
IMPEACHMENT, evidence. An allegation, supported by proof, that a witness who
has been examined is unworthy of credit.
Had to go away and think about your comment a bit.
I think impeachment has come to mean indicted rather than unworthy of credit to the American people, it's pretty murky.
But read what Digby has to say about it:
http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116569806685675392
Post a Comment