Pages

Monday, March 26, 2007

Presidential Impeachment?

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war. (www.seattletimes.com March 26, 2007)

Now, I think it's pretty clear that p.Bush is a boob who isn't acting in the best interest of our country and I'm counting the days until he is out of office. I also think there's a small possibility that he may be the anti-Christ, but I don't think we need to spend any government cycles on impeachment.

It didn't change anything for Clinton - a footnote really and it won't change anything for Bushie, he doesn't have the honor or character to step aside or admit that a change in direction is warrented. He certainly can't see his role in the decline in the stature of the US on the world stage - or that it has even happened.

Our legislative branch of the government needs to focus on the issues that p.Bush is not, i.e. the environment, our dependency on oil, budget, my love life (wait, sorry).

Feel free to disagree, that's ok with me. In my world disagreeing doesn't mean you're anti-patriotic or against the troops.

3 comments:

Peter the Cat said...

Exactly! You didn't get impeached for leaving me alone over Christmas, or for the ongoing "No Cream Affair."

MWR said...

You can't be impeached for pursuing unpopular policies.

(And apparently you have a psychic cat!)

MWR said...

What I mean to say was that pursuing unpopular policies is not an impeachable offense.