This dude has a great new idea. We should impeach Cheney first, then impeach George W. Bush. I don't really know what we are impeaching them for... I guess just cause we don't like them.
Seriously, though, I guess the reason the left thinks Karl Rove is a genius is because they are so darned STUPID. Once again, let's consider the possibilities here. Who would be Vice President if Cheney were impeached (or resigned before impeachment?) One likely possibility is Condi Rice. Who would then be in a position to take the Presidency either after a Bush impeachment (which would honestly fail, people) or during the 2008 elections? That's right, Condi Rice. Who is the only woman who could beat Hillary Clinton? If you guessed Condi Rice, you are correct!
And why do we want to impeach our President in the first place? Here's some of the reasons, according to a book called "The Case for Impeachment"
It's time for the American people and Congress to act. With so much at stake, we have a president whose administration stands out in its criminality and disdain for the rule of law. The Case for Impeachment explains the legal history and grounds for impeaching George W. Bush and brings forth more than a half dozen articles of impeachment the likes of:
*Lying and inducing Congress and the American people into an unjust war.
*Allowing his friends and business cronies to profiteer off the war in Iraq.
*Authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists--a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law.
*Stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights--holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers.
*Failing in almost every way possible to defend the homeland and our borders.
Hard hitting and persuasive in its argument, The Case for Impeachment will be one of the most talked-about political books for the pathetic remainder of the Bush Presidency.
Huh. The standard for impeachment is very clear. The executive must be accused of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." None of these accusations meet that criteria.
Lying is not an impeachable offense I mean, if that was so, wouldn't every politician be impeachable? And that's only if you believe that Bush purposefully lied to go to war.
Allowing your friends and "cronies" to profit is impeachable? Once again, no.
Stripping American citizens of their constitutional rights? Might be wrong, if you believe this is indeed happening, but not a crime.
Violating the Geneva Conventions? You might have a case for this, but not a very strong one. Furthermore, anyone who isn't a raving looney would call our treatment of prisoners and terrorists extremely fair. Oh, yes, I know, Abu Ghraib. Did Bush authorize those events, though? Did he have anything to do with them? Does he have control over what individuals in our armed forces do? Yes, the responsibility ultimately lies with the Commander-in-Chief, but that's why the people involved were punished, and why we are so careful with our treatment with these prisoners. Seriously.
Finally, failing in every possible way to defend our homeland and it's borders? What?! First off, this almost a complete contradiction to the previous two charges. Second, how? How has our homeland not been defended? Have you seen any terrorist incidents within the United States since September 11th, 2001?
These people are fringe lunatics who are so out of touch with reality that they actually believe impeachment is a possibility.
NEWSFLASH: Impeachment would be completely unsuccessful, period. A Republican Congress isn't going to go along with it, and despite the left's fantasies, the Congress with still be in GOP control after 2006, even if they lose a considerable number of seats.
Reality-based community... riiiiiight.