Rall on Why Bush Wasn't Impeached
{excerpt from Ted Rall's op ed piece today, explaining why Bush hasn't been impeached}~~~ ~~~ ~~~
My friend the film critic has just put down the same article I've just finished reading, a front-page blockbuster in the New York Daily News. It says that George W. Bush knew about Karl Rove's scheme to blow CIA agent Valerie Plame's cover for years, that he was Rove's partner in treason from the start, that his claims of ignorance were lies. The News article is anonymously sourced but we know it's 100 percent true because the White House won't deny that Bush is a traitor.
"So they'll impeach him now, right?"
My friend asked the same thing in 2001 when recounts proved Bush lost Florida, when the 9/11 fetishist admitted that he'd never even tried to catch Osama, when WMDs failed to turn up in Iraq, and when his malignant neglect killed hundreds of Americans in post-Katrina New Orleans.
"This means impeachment. Right?" Wrong.
Any one of Bush's crimes towers over the combined wickedness of Nixon and Clinton. And there are so many to choose from! How many times has Bush "made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States" (a key count in the Nixon impeachment)?
Stop laughing, you.
Unfortunately for my friend and the United States, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Nixon and Clinton faced Congresses controlled by the other party. Because Bush belongs to the same party as the majorities in the House and Senate, nothing he does can get him impeached. . . .
~~~ ~~~ ~~~
{Rall's essay continues to explain the founding fathers' historical weak point in designing the laws covering impeachment -- at the link above}
posted by E. Heroux @ 2:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home