Poppycock: A chronicle of the stupidest things ever said

This article shouldn't be taken as a serious indicator that impeachment is forthcoming. It's  a warning to Republicans not to cooperate with the Dems on this at all, and to rile up their conservative readership.

What is the legal case here?  If the Republican fails to impeach on some charge, say illegal wiretapping, could a Democratic house (supposing they gain the house in November 2006) initiate impeachment in 2007?  Or would that be double jeopardy? If so, then impeachment now might be more advantageous now than later.

OK, the above is a risky strategy for the Republicans and perhaps too far fetched.  But these are far fetched times.

Tom Malloy

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/impeachment.htm

Since this is the very last place from which I would expect to see such an article, I'm suspicious, like MyDD, not entirely sure what to think.  

Only a month ago, an editorial appeared in Barron's, the Wall Street Journal's corporate business advocate, which said that if Bush lied and spied, he should be impeached.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/24/10958/374

That was an even bigger surprise.

Is it possible that this new article is further indication that corporate America (or parts of it), the real power behind the GOP, may be quietly turning on George W. Bush, deciding that he is expendable and systematically condoning, if not actively engineering, his destruction?

The big picture simply is that Bush is a growing disaster for American business.  Corporate America has few illusions regarding what the future holds on the ground in Iraq, and its implications for the economy.

The Question: Is Bush losing his base?  

Opposition at this level needs to reach critical mass before it takes full effect.  We may be actually witnessing a hidden struggle between big oil and big business (or something like it).

Also, self interest aside, it is easy for those of us who are left-of-center to overlook that extreme wealth does not necessarily preclude genuine patriotism.

How do we follow this?  There are lots of ways.  But one clue might come from anything Andrea Mitchell has to say in the near future on NBC or MSNBC.  She's married to Alan Greenspan.

In any case, it's clear to most of us that the steel-trap GOP 'spin machine' is the only truly competent feature of the right.  It is difficult for me to believe that the two articles above simply "slipped throught the cracks" of an otherwise homogeneous message.

John Fancher, MD
Phoenix

This began with Senator Boxer and John Dean speaking at a conference and Dean said the president had admitted to an impeachable offense.

Schultz posts pod casts of his interviews on his website so you may be able to hear this for yourself.

To be clear, neither brought up the Insight Magazine article.

I get the sense there is no middle ground here.  The new expanded powers of the executive (which now appearantly means the president can ignore the consitution when convienent) will be upheld by the legislative branch and the supreme court, or Bush is gonna get smacked down.  

If that is the case, then preparing for impeachment is not a bad idea.  

Here's what I think will happen: Nothing. Rather, nothing will happen to Bush. But the administration's illegal acts will be slowly accepted as necessary and proper in "war." End of debate. Like they do with everything else, they'll lie and lie and lie and beat down any opposition. The media doesn't really have the stomach to go after them on this. The Democrats are afraid of anything remotely associated with "terrorism" for fear they'll look like wimps. And the public? Well, I don't hold out much hope for them either with a lapdog media and a cowardly opposition party. (Also, remember this is the same public that thinks Alito is pro-choice, according to recent polls. And it's the same public that thought Saddam helped Osama plan 9-11. So, to be kind, forget the public.)

No, folks, this stuff is going to be the law of the land, and historians a hundred years from now -- if we still have a free country then -- will look back and ask how could we have been so stupid.

The fact that Insight is reporting this and pointing to a Senate hearing makes me infer that Specter isn't going to wait on the House and he is the engine pushing impeachment possibilities and this story. He wants to be out in front as a maverick (a position that McCain and Hagel have taken over.)

When I heard about W's agressive counterattack on the NSA revelations--including an appearance AT THE NSA BUILDING TODAY, and his rebranding of the previously secret actions as an anti-terrorist program--I wondered why the hell he wasn't trying to keep it OFF the front page instead.  And then it struck me--they wouldn't be doing all this if it weren't out of FEAR, trying to be SO PUBLIC about the issue so they can REFRAME it as an antiterrorist program that they should have ABSOLUTELY NO SHAME about.  

This is in fact what they should do politically, if they are going to try to head off impeachment proceedings.  

Hence, I am utterly convinced that RoveCo is very scared here--not just of a potential Democratic takeover of a house of Congress, but of the possibility that McCain or Hagel or some other Repug is going to contribute to the effort in order to distance themselves from BushCo's illicit legacy, in anticipation of 2008.