everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned

January 24, 2006 2:41 PM

The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress. "A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," an administration source said.
posted by The Jesse Helms (108 comments total)

We've hoped and we've prayed, for 6 long years. Let's hope this one doesn't fizzle out.
posted by p3on at 2:45 PM on January 24, 2006

And with the Republicans in control this will go over about as well as a turd-filled balloon.

Don't get me wrong, he deserves to be impeached, his whole administration should be impeached and indicted. But it just ain't gonna happen until the system's checks and balances are restored.

Which means, the November elections are damned important.
posted by fenriq at 2:47 PM on January 24, 2006

*doesn't hold his breath*
posted by keswick at 2:48 PM on January 24, 2006

Interesting strategery: When you're about to get indicted, start talking about impeachment yourself so you control the spin and keep it out of the criminal courts. Fascinating. It's like they're taking a page out of Clinton's book by getting potential criminal charges taken out of the criminal forum and cast into the political forum where they can do less damage. Someone at the White House has apparently been watching West Wing reruns (since Bartlett did the same thing a couple seasons ago).
posted by JekPorkins at 2:48 PM on January 24, 2006

That message brought to you by Captain Obvious (which I really wish I could change my username to sometimes because I hate sock puppets and absolutely refuse to get one even if it does mean I can't use a cool new name).
posted by fenriq at 2:48 PM on January 24, 2006

. . . but what about that $300.00 tax rebate a few years back? I thought it was 'insurance' against this kind of inquisition.

Is it wrong to wish waterboarding upon those who implicitly approved it while simultaneously saying we don't do that?

After all, they've pretty much established that its the only way to really get the truth.
posted by isopraxis at 2:51 PM on January 24, 2006

Not to engage in argumentum ad hominem, but I do not trust this source.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:52 PM on January 24, 2006

Mind you -- Bush wasn't endorsing or involved in 'domestic spying,' but rather in a 'terrorist surveillance program.'

Spinning it this way actually makes it legal! Right.
posted by ericb at 2:55 PM on January 24, 2006

*holds breath*
posted by boo_radley at 2:56 PM on January 24, 2006

Yeah... and monkeys could fly outta my butt...

Now if it involved a plo chop...
posted by jpburns at 2:58 PM on January 24, 2006

Does anybody take this article seriously at all? I for one know nothing about Insight on the News, but it sure looks unreliable. The article itself is supported by quotes from "an administration source," "sources," and "administration sources," then tells us what "the source said". As for the documented comments from Specter, Gore, and others, that the espionage may be illegal, that hardly supports the proposition that "a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February."

On second thought, what fenriq and keswick said.
posted by huzzahhuzzah at 2:59 PM on January 24, 2006

Since there obviously aren't the votes to impeach, they will - if anything - negotiate a meaningless censure. Taking another cue from Jed Barlet, in other words.

Democratic congressional candidates who come out openly in support of impeachment will be accused of having an "agenda" and will be rejected by red-state voters as overly partisan. So I doubt that, even if the Dems squeak out a bare majority, many of the Yellow Dogs will join the liberals in supporting the impeachment process.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 3:00 PM on January 24, 2006

'Insight on the News' is the current events magazine published by the very conservative Washington Times newspaper -- hence the reason that the Huffington Post and other left-leaning blogs are taking note.
posted by ericb at 3:02 PM on January 24, 2006

Insight and the Washington Times are both owned by News World Communications. Draw your own conclusions from that.
posted by fochsenhirt at 3:03 PM on January 24, 2006

AMERICAblog: GOP newspaper says impeachment is a real possibility

The really strange part is that this comes from the Washington Times (Insight is their magazine), the Republicans' unofficial party newspaper here in DC. And even weirder, the article in the Washington Times is hardly critical of the possible impeachment of George Bush. On the contrary, the article does a pretty good job of laying out the case for his impeachment.

Lots of tea leaves to read here, but this isn't the first time the Washington Times has hinted that it is no friend of this president. And again, you have to remember that this newspaper defends Republicans at all costs. For them to write about this topic, in this manner, is highly telling. Of something.

The Huffington Post: Conservative Mag: Bush Admin. Bracing For Impeachment Hearings...

"The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress.

'A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment,' an administration source said.

Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

posted by ericb at 3:06 PM on January 24, 2006

I want to believe.
I want to believe.
I want to believe.

*fails to believe*
posted by LarryC at 3:08 PM on January 24, 2006

if it was good enough for nixon . . .
posted by nola at 3:09 PM on January 24, 2006

The really strange part is that this comes from the Washington Times (Insight is their magazine), the Republicans' unofficial party Reverend Moon's newspaper here in DC.
posted by caddis at 3:11 PM on January 24, 2006

Hopefully congressional republicans are growing a pair, at least to the extent that they recognize that they can either hang Dubya out to dry now, or let Dubya make them all hang in '06.

Rats from a sinking ship?
posted by stenseng at 3:12 PM on January 24, 2006

"Fifteen years ago, when the world was adrift on the stormy waves of the Cold War, I established The Washington Times to fulfill God's desperate desire to save this world. Since that time, I have devoted myself to raising up The Washington Times, hoping that this blessed land of America would fulfill its world-wide mission to build a Heavenly nation. Meanwhile, I waged a lonely struggle, facing enormous obstacles and scorn as I dedicated my whole heart and energy to enable The Washington Times to grow as a righteous and responsible journalistic institution." -- Reverend Sun Myung Moon | 1997
posted by ericb at 3:18 PM on January 24, 2006

If there is an impeachment, I will gain respect for the US system of government. Currently, I have no respect for it, because by my eyes it is broken all the way from voter registration through the voting process through the entire Congress/Senate/Judicial/Military structure.

I'm not holding my breath.

My other thought is this: if Bush is hung out to dry, it will be in order to cover the asses of those who are really to blame. Bush is, IMO, a puppet. An evil one, like Chuckie, but a puppet nonetheless.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:22 PM on January 24, 2006

Never has a president been more deserving of impeachment.

But this ain't gonna happen. Either the right wing Insight is just playing sensationalist, tabloid journalism, or there is some Goebbels-esque PR plan at work.

But the motherfuckers in Congress that call themselves Republicans aren't going to impeach Bush.
posted by teece at 3:26 PM on January 24, 2006

Bush = Chuckie = Alfred E. Newman's Evil Twin
posted by ericb at 3:26 PM on January 24, 2006

So he got a blowjob from a fat whoring Jew.

Big deal. Get over it. Move on.
posted by orthogonality at 3:26 PM on January 24, 2006

fff: Chuckie was a "Good Guy" doll, not a puppet.
posted by Kickstart70 at 3:27 PM on January 24, 2006

I like it when Bush talks about being a "conservative" because he obviously has not the first idea of what the word means. I bet he thinks the word has something to do with jelly.
posted by fenriq at 3:31 PM on January 24, 2006

I don't care if Bush gets impeached. Not one bit. Not as long as the GOP gets tossed out on their ear in Congress like they should. Sure, the Democrats are about the worst possible alternative, but lesser of two evils is what we've got in this country.

Just enough Democrats to make his dusty, unused veto stamp worthless.
posted by Saydur at 3:32 PM on January 24, 2006

Impeached, then kicked in the balls. Then kicked in the balls again.
posted by chasing at 3:34 PM on January 24, 2006

I'm surprised no one has pointed this out yet: If impeachment goes through, isn't Cheney next in line? And this is better how?
Unless there's plans to then impeach Cheney... in which case by the time all this is all done it'll be time for the next elections.
posted by like_neon at 3:44 PM on January 24, 2006

The White House just announced that pictures of Abramoff and the President do exist, however, they are not going to release them. Can't those be requested by using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? Anyone?
posted by Mr_Zero at 3:49 PM on January 24, 2006

...isn't Cheney next in line? And this is better how?

Bush's impeachment would make the complete administration impotent, no matter who sits at the head of the table.
posted by wsg at 3:49 PM on January 24, 2006

What a pleasant change that will bring! down with the liar, incompetent, confused dumb guy and 3 years of Dick Cheney! Now that is something to look forward to
posted by Postroad at 3:51 PM on January 24, 2006

Bush's impeachment wouldn't make Cheney President any more than Clinton's impeachment made Gore the Pres.
posted by TonyRobots at 3:55 PM on January 24, 2006

Oops, bad link. Sorry:

Clinton's impeachment (wikipedia)
posted by TonyRobots at 3:56 PM on January 24, 2006

Too busy to read so please summarize for me: Exactly when does this source say that GWB got a blowjob? And please don't say it was from Karen Hughes.
posted by hal9k at 3:56 PM on January 24, 2006

From wikipedia: Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.

Ok so even if Bush were impeached, there is still only the possibility of conviction. (this is where Clinton got off the hook, right?)

So, if it ends up that Bush is convicted and removed from office, is it not true that Cheney would succeed him? And from reading how Ford did after Nixon was impeached and removed, it sounds like Cheney would not be impotent as wsg claims. (wikipedia describes economic and foreign policy moves set in place by Ford)

(Sorry if I'm sounding like a total politics n00b. I got my citizenship two years ago and I'm still learning)
posted by like_neon at 4:07 PM on January 24, 2006

I'm with FFF on this one. GW is a frontman for a group(?) of far more evil people.
posted by a3matrix at 4:11 PM on January 24, 2006

The sourced quotes in the article are all accurate (as far as I know) but the conclusion is ridiculous. Of course Bush isn't going to be impeached. Not unless there is a huge Congressional turnover in November, which is unlikely.

...isn't Cheney next in line? And this is better how?

It is unfortunate, but it doesn't matter. If the President committed high crimes or misdemeanors, he should be impeached. Even if he is impeached and not convicted, it would still be a strong political statement that Congress won't put up with having its constitutional authority usurped. Much like the last impeachment made a strong statement that the Republican party will sink to any depth to make a political opponent look bad. ($40 million to investigate whitewater -- no related indictments).

On preview: Ford was not Nixon's VP. Agnew was, and he resigned before Nixon did. Ford was nominated to replace him by Nixon, according to the procedure in the 25th amendment.
posted by jlub at 4:12 PM on January 24, 2006

If Bush is impeached get ready for the impeachment of every president for the next 25 years.
posted by b_thinky at 4:14 PM on January 24, 2006

Also, if I were Karl Rove I would just spin impeachment as more "proof" that the Democrats hate GWB more than they hate the terrorists.
posted by b_thinky at 4:16 PM on January 24, 2006

White House just announced that pictures of Abramoff and the President do exist.

Also --

Is Abramoff Shopping Photos of Himself With Bush?

Newsweek Correspondent Michael Isikoff Confirms Abramoff Shopped Bush Photos.
posted by ericb at 4:16 PM on January 24, 2006

Two presidents impeached in a row...that'll sure improve our standing in the eyes of the world.
posted by gottabefunky at 4:18 PM on January 24, 2006

Two presidents impeached in a row...that'll sure improve our standing in the eyes of the world.

Well, our standing right now isn't that peachy to being with.
posted by ericb at 4:19 PM on January 24, 2006

*to begin*
posted by ericb at 4:19 PM on January 24, 2006

Honestly, b_thinky, was the blowjob anywhere near as bad as the transgressions this administration has committed?

Somebody started this whole "Impeach the President" thing, and if I remember correctly, the house was controlled by republicans then too....
posted by Freen at 4:20 PM on January 24, 2006

b_thinky:

Um... if Clinton is impeached, get ready for the impeachment of every president for the next 25 years (whenever the opposing party controls Congress).

Also, I really don't think Democrats should make political decisions based on what Karl Rove would say. He'll smear them no matter what.
posted by jlub at 4:20 PM on January 24, 2006

posted by Smedleyman at 4:25 PM on January 24, 2006

If Bush is impeached get ready for the impeachment of every president for the next 25 years.

I don't see McCain - or for that matter Obama - getting impeached.

Hillary on the other hand...
posted by Smedleyman at 4:25 PM on January 24, 2006

impeach the president - pullin' out the ray-gun
Zap the next one - I could be you're Sho-gun
Suckers - don't last a minute
Soft and smooth - I ain't with it
Hardcore - rawbone like a razor
I'm like a lazer - I just won't graze ya
Old enough to raise ya - so this will faze ya
Get it right boy and maybe I will praise ya

---

Whether GWB is just the dross of whatever guys behind the scenes, the journey has to begin with one step. I sure as hell would like to know what the president knew about the pre-war intel, this warrentless search b.s. - plus a lot of other things having to do with the check I have to send them every April.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:31 PM on January 24, 2006

Whether GWB is just the dross of whatever guys behind the scenes, the journey has to begin with one step.

Exactly. I have no doubt in my mind that Bush isn't the one pulling the strings, and if he gets impeached and subsequently told to hit the bricks, the ones really running the show will still be there. But I don't think that's an excuse to let him off the hook, or not bother at all.
posted by Meredith at 4:39 PM on January 24, 2006

who knew there was another David Paymer fan out there? brilliant actor!
posted by mrgrimm at 4:44 PM on January 24, 2006

Impeachment would certainly help change the average American's (whoever that is) perception of what's been going on, and perception often creates reality.

It might be the first step along the wake-up-to-reality pathway.

Maybe.

But it won't happen. I can imagine two likely reasons for the Washington Times to go with this storyline: counter-propaganda led by Rove, as mentioned above--if real legal woes are unavoidable, shove as much as possible into the political sphere and the court of public opinion. OR the neo-cons have decided that the religious zealots have got to go, and they're starting with their poster child.
posted by LooseFilter at 4:47 PM on January 24, 2006

"the Huffington Post and other left-leaning blogs are taking note"

Citing the Huffington Post does not add a point for credibility.
posted by mischief at 4:57 PM on January 24, 2006

Also, if I were Karl Rove I would just spin impeachment as more "proof" that the Democrats hate GWB more than they hate the terrorists.

That would be an interesting PR campaign. Because unless we are talking about a (very) hypothetical impeachment by a newly-Democratic 2006 Congress, it would be a Republican Congressional majority that impeached the man.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Rove wouldn't try it. And he might even succeed. He's managed to convince a lot of idiots (who call themselves smart, educated people) that the Republican Abramoff finance/bribery/theft scandal is somehow "bipartisan."

I'm sure the suckers that currently vote "R" would fall for it. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
posted by teece at 4:58 PM on January 24, 2006

Citing the Huffington Post does not add a point for credibility.

Missing the point of the citation doesn't help much, either, mischief.
posted by teece at 4:59 PM on January 24, 2006

So, if it ends up that Bush is convicted and removed from office, is it not true that Cheney would succeed him? And from reading how Ford did after Nixon was impeached and removed, it sounds like Cheney would not be impotent as wsg claims. (wikipedia describes economic and foreign policy moves set in place by Ford)

(Sorry if I'm sounding like a total politics n00b. I got my citizenship two years ago and I'm still learning)


Nixon wasn't impeached he resigned from office instead of facing inevitable impeachment proceedings which he would have almost assuredly been convicted of.

Which is the same thing I think Bush would do should that become a distinct possibility. Bush being ever concerned about his legacy, and with the Repubs still so enchanted by the fact that Clinton was impeached (regardless of the fact that he wasn't convicted). They seem to still love the fact that this occured, even though the charges were so tenuous. Bush in not wanting to wear that same albatross around his legacy, in not wanting his base to associate anything about him with Clinton, will do what any yellow bellied spoiled rich kid would do...tuck tail between legs and head for the hills. Retire quietly to the Ranch....um er uh to Dallas.
posted by SweetIceT at 5:06 PM on January 24, 2006

my question of the day:

if the next terrorist attack in the US is a disgruntled Iraq War vet and some white supremacist nutcases blowing up a federal building (imagine that... i'm there would be some who would still claim saddam was involved) - would bush have the legal authority (as he claims) to spy on the phone calls and lives of all servicemen and their families (to prevent likeminded servicemen from doing the same)?
posted by specialk420 at 5:13 PM on January 24, 2006

I'm sorry you missed it, teece. Shall I explain it to you?
posted by mischief at 5:19 PM on January 24, 2006

my question of the day:

if the next terrorist attack in the US is a disgruntled Iraq War vet and some white supremacist nutcases blowing up a federal building (imagine that... i'm there would be some who would still claim saddam was involved) - would bush have the legal authority (as he claims) to spy on the phone calls and lives of all servicemen and their families (to prevent likeminded servicemen from doing the same)?
posted by specialk420 at 5:21 PM on January 24, 2006

*greases up the slippery slope*

Servicemen will only be under federal scrutiny (on the record) for the next 25 years during the years in which there is a winter olympics or a war in which chaplains are suspected of being to tolerant to Islam, Jews for Jesus, or who express desire to be able to purchase girl guide cookies year round.
posted by isopraxis at 5:27 PM on January 24, 2006

It'll never happen. Besides, if Cheney gets in the office you can look forward to WW III really soon. I don't know how they manage to keep a leash on Cheney. I'm surprised he hasn't had Bush bumped off even.
posted by snsranch at 5:30 PM on January 24, 2006

A highly partisan Republican Congress failed to convict Clinton.

And now you think there is hope that an even more partisan Congress will impeach Bush, let alone convict him? Shine on you crazy diamond!
posted by tweak at 5:40 PM on January 24, 2006

I'm sorry you missed it, teece. Shall I explain it to you?

mischief: I'll speak really slowly, try to keep up, k?

ericb (which is whom I assume you are quoting, unless someone else said that, too) mentioned Huff Post NOT to lend credibility, as your empty, petty sniping implied. Rather, he was pointing out that they (Huff post et al.) were interested because the source of this story is a right wing rag. Which is an interesting point, completely separate from the credibility of this story.

See? Nothing to do with credibility. But thanks for playing.
posted by teece at 5:43 PM on January 24, 2006

Man; never realized that such a bullshit story could get so many liberals into a circle jerk.
posted by fijidan at 5:53 PM on January 24, 2006

Metafilter: never realized that such a bullshit story could get so many liberals into a circle jerk.
posted by stenseng at 6:06 PM on January 24, 2006

Man; never realized that such a bullshit story could get so many liberals into a circle jerk.

FYI ... this just in ...

Political Bias Affects Brain Activity, Study Fnds

"Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.

And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view."

[LiveScience | January 24, 2006]

posted by ericb at 6:14 PM on January 24, 2006

Man; never realized that such a bullshit story could get so many liberals into a circle jerk

I'm sorry, where's that? Sure, there are people excited at the prospect that GWB might be out of office even sooner than anticipated. But you may also notice the "ain't gonna happen" sentiments from a number of certified Bush-hating posters, and even a few interesting possibilities of how this could be strategic for Bush.
posted by namespan at 6:18 PM on January 24, 2006

he just likes saying 'circle jerk'.
posted by quonsar at 6:29 PM on January 24, 2006

posted by quonsar at 6:35 PM on January 24, 2006

So, I have a question...

lets say Bush gets impeached (you can stop laughing any moment now, I'll wait...) and gets convicted (please stop laughing) and Cheney becomes president...

So Cheney is president for, say 2-3 years... can he run for president after his term is complete? If so, does the aborted term that he could inherit from Bush count towards the two term limit on president?

You may just be looking at how the neo-cons plan to hold power after GWB. Just sayin... ;-)
posted by C.Batt at 6:38 PM on January 24, 2006

I give this about as much credibility as the "cut and run" bill that the Republicans released right after Murtha came out so strongly against the war. I agree with fenriq, et al that this is a bit of political theater designed to get the isue out, spin it immediately and get the base roiled up and ready to fight. The fact that they are doing this while the House is securely Republican seems to affirm that.

Now's not the time for impeachment. But soon, hopefully this November ...
posted by rks404 at 6:59 PM on January 24, 2006

C.Batt, a president is limited to 10 years not two terms. Cheney could serve two years of Bush's Presidency and have two full terms afterwards.

Johnson, you may recall, declined to run for his second full term in 1968, serving only 6 years in office.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:02 PM on January 24, 2006

quonsar: you made scrolling through this thread worth it. Thanks!
posted by tweak at 7:03 PM on January 24, 2006

quonsar wins! 'cause THATS some funny shit right there yo.
posted by snsranch at 7:03 PM on January 24, 2006

Apparently Bush and Cheney have been secret "Log Cabin" republicans this whole time!
posted by snsranch at 7:08 PM on January 24, 2006

So Cheney is president for, say 2-3 years... can he run for president after his term is complete? If so, does the aborted term that he could inherit from Bush count towards the two term limit on president?

The 22nd Amendment: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

If they were gaming this, they would try to time Dubya's resignation for January 21, 2007.

You may just be looking at how the neo-cons plan to hold power after GWB.

They know Cheney is unelectable. He isn't their ace in the hole -- it's Condi, or possibly McCain. If a resignation becomes "necessary" in political terms -- which it hasn't yet -- I suspect we'll see Cheney resign for health reasons, with Condoleezza appointed in his stead. Condi probably couldn't earn the nomination in a primary, by recent polls of the GOP, but she is seen as an antidote to a Hillary run.

Anyway, I'm with the claque who suspects that the Insight piece is disinformation, part of a Rovian ratfuck strategy to make Dems overconfident or something. Unless it begins to come out that, like Nixon, Bush was using his spy powers to peek in on domestic political enemies, this is probably something that -- given a sympathetic Republican Congress -- will ultimately be solved by a new law of some sort giving the WH a measure of warrantless spying capability. Anyway, that's my impression of what this will look like a year out.
posted by dhartung at 7:23 PM on January 24, 2006

I sadly agree with you dhartung.
posted by caddis at 7:28 PM on January 24, 2006

A variation on quonsar's image ...


posted by ericb at 7:36 PM on January 24, 2006

will ultimately be solved by a new law of some sort giving the WH a measure of warrantless spying capability.

It's interesting that this keeps getting floated. It would let Bush do what he is doing now "legally" (if un-Constitutionally -- that "probable cause" thing can't be unwritten, and it would not withstand a non-partisan judicial ruling. But we don't really have those much any more...)

But it would do nothing to change the fact that the Bush White House admitted to illegal behavior, owns said illegality, and fully intends to continue on with said illegality. Indeed, they feel it is their imperial right to disregard the law when it suits them.

There is no putting that toothpaste back in the tube: Bush has broken the law and committed an impeachable offense. There's no undoing that, no matter how fuckwad Congress might decide to try and change the FISA law.

But none of that means the venal bunch of fucks that have infected Congress are going to come to their senses and carry out their duty of impeaching Bush. They want an emperor.
posted by teece at 7:36 PM on January 24, 2006

I suspect we'll see Cheney resign for health reasons, with Condoleezza appointed in his stead.

That isn't the line of succession. After VP, it would be Speaker of the House, then President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The only way Dr. Rice could get to the presidency is if Cheney assumes the role of President, appoints Rice VP, the majority of both houses of Congress vote to confirm her, and then Cheney steps down.

Well, it isn't the only way, but it does the job without killing off Dennis Hastert and Ted Stevens.

All of that said, dhartung's right. No way that this NSA jazz is going to bring down Bush.
posted by Cassford at 7:55 PM on January 24, 2006

I'm waiting to Bush to say he "takes full responsibility" for the problems and then does absolutely nothing about them.

Oh, and I almost forgot, and that puts all the issues to rest as we forget all about it.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:57 PM on January 24, 2006

The only reason Cheney hasn't sacrificed Bush himself is that Cheney still needs a front man that can tolerate bright lights.
posted by Balisong at 8:03 PM on January 24, 2006

i'm not seeing this actually going through unfortunately. and thanks for awakening me to the fact that cheney would be next in line. ugh.

as to that cheney successor question before... he would be able to run again, but only once.
posted by Doorstop at 8:10 PM on January 24, 2006

Cassford: the "line of succession" takes effect only when the Presidency is vacant - if the VP leaves office while we have a President, then the President nominates a new VP who must be confirmed by both the House and Senate, per section 2 of the 25th Amendment.
posted by nicwolff at 8:11 PM on January 24, 2006

Say... Where's Paris? I figured this thread would be right up his alley.
posted by Balisong at 8:16 PM on January 24, 2006

Why would it be up his alley? He would be immediately and humiliatingly spanked should he perform yet another of his tiresome trolling stunts. More and more readers and writers are fully aware that he exists solely to destroy what we enjoy.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:26 PM on January 24, 2006

I know, but I just carved a new paddle, have practiced my spanking technique, and was all ready to try it out.
posted by Balisong at 8:35 PM on January 24, 2006

Hate to let a good paddle go to waste, and I did piss you off being kind of an ass in the WTC thread, so here is my best attempt at channeling Paris, you may swing freely:

Dream on. Good luck with your fantasies. Do they temper the sting of your recent travails? Alito is headed for sure confirmation and will overturn Roe and uphold GW's noble efforts to protect us from the terrorists. Hillary is stuck on the plantation, Nagey is drowning in molten chocolate, and the polls show many if not most Americans approve of Bush's terrorist surveillance program. Who is going to actually support impeachment? The GOP who control both House and Senate. Hah. How pathetic can the donkey boys get?

posted by caddis at 9:04 PM on January 24, 2006

Please don't.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:44 PM on January 24, 2006

Bah, caddis! You are like substituting carab for chocolate.
posted by Balisong at 11:41 PM on January 24, 2006

Agreed, although I do like the phrase donkey boys.
posted by dopeypanda at 12:18 AM on January 25, 2006

If the House Republicans don't make noise about impeaching Bush, they stand a better chance of being replaced in November. Therefore, of course they will, at least, make noise. It could go so far as a trial. This is to make Republicans look like real Americans that defend the Constitution. Of course, some of them are.
posted by Goofyy at 12:28 AM on January 25, 2006

Of course, some of them aren't.
posted by Balisong at 12:29 AM on January 25, 2006

so, they bend over and give him "let's-all-fondle-10-year-old-girls" Alito, ie they give Bush the head of Roe vs Wade, without even a bit of filibustering, but in the end they're going to impeach him? like, a prank? ha-fucking-ha.

if anything, Congress has been rubberstamping Bush's decisions with impressive gusto. and as pointed out above, blowjobs-in-the-Oval-Office are very easy to sell to the public, unlike Bush's crimes.

find a video of Lewinsky's sister going down on Bush, or -- ahem -- suck it up until he leaves office in 2009, boys.
posted by matteo at 12:34 AM on January 25, 2006

Hate to say it, but I have to agree with matteo on this one.

It's clear that Congresscritters are less interested in upholding the Constitution than they are in upholding their party affiliations. Until Bush does something that will actually offend even his conservative base (and grasping for more power, even illegally, doesn't meet the bar) and stir some action, we're just going to see posturing.

Until Congress grows both a spine and a conscience, we're screwed.
posted by FormlessOne at 2:38 AM on January 25, 2006

I would argue that Bush is merely the frontman for the party. He just does as he's told, it's the party machinery that pulls the strings, and there's no mechanism for excising that tumor.

Anyway, the Republicans have 55 senators, 56 if you count Joe Lieberman. George Bush is quite safe.
posted by Jatayu das at 4:07 AM on January 25, 2006

56 if you count Joe Lieberman

poor Joe. he's so fucking desperate for a good job in the Administration, knowing very well that no Democrat (if they'll ever manage to beat those pesky Diebold machines, of course) will appoint him dogcatcher. he's Zell Miller without the bugfuck insane eyes -- he's Zell Miller on lithium.

if Rove's smarth enough, as soon as Rummy resigns and retires to his palatial mansion*, the job should be Lieberman's. Joementum! the crown jewel in the career of such a mediocre, mediocre man.

*
to spend more time with his tasty Abu Ghraib "Too Hot For TV" torture videos (perfect when you're having a well-deserved Iraqi blood Martini, at dusk, after a long day at the office)

posted by matteo at 4:30 AM on January 25, 2006

More grist to the mill. BBC just reports US government "blocks" Katrina probe.
The US administration is really impressing Europe these days.; soon it will start acting like Berlusconi.
posted by adamvasco at 5:03 AM on January 25, 2006

If Bush is impeached get ready for the impeachment of every president for the next 25 years.
posted by b_thinky at 4:14 PM PST on January 24 [!]

And one could only hope that would be the outcome if one has done illegal things.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:00 AM on January 25, 2006

How many kittens does Bush need to kill...
posted by amberglow at 7:11 AM on January 25, 2006

great Media Matters thing on the difference in media coverage of Lewinsky and NSA Spying (a day after the story broke it was all over the papers then, but not at all now): ... So, some questions for the Times, and the Post, and ABC, and CBS, and NBC, and CNN, and Time, and Newsweek, and other leading news organizations:
1)How many reporters, editors, and researchers did you assign to the Lewinsky story when it broke? How many remained assigned to that story one month later?
2)How many reporters, editors, and researchers did you assign to the NSA story when it broke? How many remained assigned to that story one month later?
3)How do you explain the disparity?
We assume many news organizations would respond by saying that they aren't devoting as much attention to the NSA matter because it hasn't captured the nation's attention the way the Lewinsky investigation did.
But that's a canard; as we demonstrated above, the Times and the Post ran a combined 19 articles totaling more than 20,000 words just a day after the Lewinsky story first broke -- long before they could have known whether the public was interested. If the story captured the nation's attention, it's because the media forced it down our throats. And if Americans aren't captivated by the NSA matter, it may be because the media aren't hyping it nearly as much as it has much lesser stories....
posted by amberglow at 7:22 AM on January 25, 2006

Cheney could serve two years of Bush's Presidency and have two full terms afterwards.

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 8:41 AM on January 25, 2006

*hands Dormant Gorilla a Tic-Tac*
posted by matteo at 11:07 AM on January 25, 2006

A Program By Any Other Name…

"The White House is desperate to change the name of Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program. The White House wants people to call it a 'terrorist surveillance program.'

The press office even released a handy fact sheet:

Domestic Calls are calls inside the United States. International Calls are calls either to or from the United States.

Domestic Flights are flights from one American city to another. International Flights are flights to or from the United States.

Domestic Mail consists of letters and packages sent within the United States. International Mail consists of letters and packages sent to or from the United States.

Domestic Commerce involves business within the United States. International Commerce involves business between the United States and other countries.

It’s good to know that the White House knows the difference between a domestic flight and an international flight. But it’s completely irrelevant. (Afterall, the White House isn’t asking people to call it an 'international surveillance program.')

The program should have a name to accurately describe it. A combination of two things distinguish this program from all other legal surveillance programs:

1. It was conducted without a warrant. (Warrantless)
2. It involved people on U.S. soil." (Domestic)

posted by ericb at 11:14 AM on January 25, 2006

Impeachment is likely.
posted by muppetboy at 11:31 AM on January 25, 2006

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this yet (apologies if I missed it)...
Isn't there yet another possible angle to Republican strategy here? Let's say impeachment proceedings went ahead and failed to convict. It would leave the administration untouchable. Politically, impeachment is something you get one shot at. If Bush survived it, it could be spun as an endorsement of Republican policy. Bring it on.
posted by normy at 12:01 PM on January 25, 2006

"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."
posted by ericb at 4:05 PM on January 25, 2006

More Americans favor impeaching Bush, poll says.
posted by ericb at 8:26 PM on January 25, 2006