Bush Impeachment Proceedings Initiated

April 25, 2006 12:36 PM

Bush Impeachment - The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a BombshellUtilizing a little known rule of the US House to bring Impeachment charges. California Becomes Second State to Introduce Bush Impeachment.
posted by digibri (86 comments total)

For folks who didn't bother to read the articles-- they're both links to The Economist and it is 100% plausible and true!
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:42 PM on April 25, 2006

What good will it do? There isn't a majority in the house to actually impeach, there isn't a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to convict.

If Bush were to be impeached right now, the Senate would simply never bother to try Bush.

Now, if Illinois and California were to bring up secession bills....
posted by eriko at 12:43 PM on April 25, 2006

Is there some pent-up demand for this (W's impeachment) that I've missed? Why is it that the Illinois Legislature has to drudge up some "gotcha!" rule to get this process underway?
posted by Yeomans at 12:43 PM on April 25, 2006

When will we see it on MSM?
posted by poppo at 12:43 PM on April 25, 2006

A variation of the word "Representative" appears as the first word on four consecutive lines of the first paragraph.

I've been hypnotized!
posted by flarbuse at 12:45 PM on April 25, 2006

Wow, sounds heavy.

This was dated 22 and 24 april, why haven't I heard anything about this? Storm in a teacup?
posted by beno at 12:46 PM on April 25, 2006

The B stands for Booyaka!
posted by WinnipegDragon at 12:46 PM on April 25, 2006

Good point Robot Johny.

My apologies for the social gaffe. I got so excited to be making my first post that I entered my habitual (and manually entered) e-mail sig.

posted by digibri at 12:47 PM on April 25, 2006

You haven't heard about it because it is meaningless.
posted by Falconetti at 12:48 PM on April 25, 2006

I wonder what Jack Snow will have to say about this?

eriko, not a majority now but what about in November?
posted by fenriq at 12:48 PM on April 25, 2006

OK, MC. We keep forgetting that you only follow the Big Leagues, and most puny small-potatoes websites aren't of interest to you. So, here's a link to the Illinois General Assembly site with the text of the resolution. Is that 100% plausible and true enough for you? The measure, if passed, would require action by the US House. Whether anything comes of it, who knows, but deriding the source is kind of silly since this is a lot more tangible possibility than the previously mentioned efforts in Vermont. The Vermont issue was not being pushed by a member of the state legislature; both of these efforts are.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:49 PM on April 25, 2006

n ABC News/Washington Post Poll Conducted April 6-9 showed that 33% of Americans currently support Impeaching President Bush, coincidentally, only a similar amount supported impeaching Nixon at the start of the Watergate investigation.

Man, remember investigations? Ah, nostalgia.
posted by nanojath at 12:50 PM on April 25, 2006

The Bill ...Urges the General Assembly to submit charges to the U. S. House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States, George W. Bush, for willfully violating his Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and if found guilty urges his removal from office and disqualification to hold any other office in the United States.

So, in other words, it does absolutely nothing. Fuck, this proclamation has more of a tangible effect on the operations of our governor than that bill.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:50 PM on April 25, 2006

...government...
posted by SweetJesus at 12:51 PM on April 25, 2006

In other news, Bush announced today that he is going to lower gasoline prices by temporarily suspending environmental rules governing gas blends and the pollutants their burning creates. What a dick. The faster he is out of office the better.
posted by Mr_Zero at 12:55 PM on April 25, 2006

2 down.

48 to go.
posted by wakko at 12:58 PM on April 25, 2006

So, in other words, it does absolutely nothing.

Incorrect.

Emphasis added:

A resolution simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment may be a possible consequence, is not privileged. But where a resolution of investigation positively proposes impeachment or suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege.

-Jefferson's Manual (PDF link)

It doesn't force the Congress to act upon it, but it does get admitted to the record and read on the floor, if I understand correctly.
posted by edverb at 1:01 PM on April 25, 2006

ITMFA
posted by runehog at 1:03 PM on April 25, 2006

“they're both links to The Economist and it is 100% plausible and true!” - posted by Mayor Curley

“When will we see it on MSM?” - posted by poppo

Yeah, lemme fix that for ya buddy.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:04 PM on April 25, 2006

So what's to keep Hastert from changing the rule, then?
posted by Vetinari at 1:05 PM on April 25, 2006

Yes, please, impeach Bush.

Because Cheney is so much better.
posted by davros42 at 1:05 PM on April 25, 2006

I find it refreshing to hear of elected representatives, if only on the state level, willing to stand up and call out the Bush administration. Whether or not this will have any tangible legal impact, the act of calling for impeachment in this way brings the issue to light in a way that's not so easily ignored or dismissed.
posted by ursus_comiter at 1:08 PM on April 25, 2006

Thats better, thanks (@Smedley)
posted by poppo at 1:09 PM on April 25, 2006

Bush: Cheney's immunity idol
posted by lazymonster at 1:09 PM on April 25, 2006

Oh, come on -- we've known for two years now that The Economist is a Commie rag, with their advocacy of Donald Rumsfeld "taking responsibility" for military actions on his watch, and other seditious sentiments that are clearly left-wing moonbatty. Now I guess even US generals are reading it, or something. This must be stopped.
posted by digaman at 1:10 PM on April 25, 2006

via the wiki:

"House Rules and Manual", GPOAccess.gov. (PDF, text)

§ 603: "In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: […] by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488)…"
posted by Merik at 1:11 PM on April 25, 2006

Davros the California measure names Bush and Cheney on the draft.
posted by daHIFI at 1:11 PM on April 25, 2006

Falconetti, exactly how is it meaningless that two states (and California isn't exactly unimportant) think so little of the President that they feel he should be impeached? That is in fact a very meaningful thing indeed.

It is a unique event in the history of the United States.

It is only meaningless if you think sizable minorities (the people disenchanted with Bush's performance to the point of being willing to impeach him) ought to be ignored when they make their wishes known.
posted by oddman at 1:11 PM on April 25, 2006

As a practical matter, there's a long road ahead for this effort. Both bills are brand spanking new. They have been introduced by legislators for consideration, but they have NOT been passed as laws, and they probably won't be approved. And even if one did get approved, it would surely die in the House Judiciary Committee or otherwise go nowhere in Congress.

That said, I'm all for anything that connects "Bush" and "impeachment" in the public mind.
posted by brain_drain at 1:15 PM on April 25, 2006

The measure, if passed, would require action by the US House.

What? The only required action would be to bury it in the House judiciary committee which is run by James Sensenbrenner, and even IF it wasn't buried and got out, it would have to pass through the House Rules committee which is run by David Dreier.

Good fucking luck!

It doesn't force the Congress to act upon it, but it does get admitted to the record and read on the floor, if I understand correctly.

The House of Representatives is the only body that can bring impeachment proceedings at a federal level, and that's a fact. A state legislature can get the ball rolling on the impeachment process, but the bill would still need to be sponsored by a member of the House, and go through the committee process. Hell, a grand jury can issue a resolution calling for impeachment, but it doesn't do squat, practically. In other words, it's just symbolic - the only plausible way impeachment proceedings would begin is if the Democrats had control of the House, and as such, all of the committees. Short of that, nothing will happen.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:15 PM on April 25, 2006

OK, MC. We keep forgetting that you only follow the Big Leagues, and most puny small-potatoes websites aren't of interest to you. So, here's a link to the Illinois General Assembly site with the text of the resolution.

The larger point is that George W. Bush could shoot you in the face on the fifty yard line at the Superbowl and then masturbate over your corpse and he still wouldn't get impeached. George W. Bush could launch a nuclear strike against a convent in Manhattan and half the country would say that he was smart to do it.

The corporations that don't pay taxes and get to dump their toxic shit everywhere own the president and the congressmen that would have to impeach him. Point me to a million websites, it doesn't matter. I bet you an ice cream that he gets to finish out his term without any hassles. And I'll bet you another one that another republican gets elected after he does because the Republicans count the votes now. Stop caring. We lost and we'll never get enough people to care enough to do a thing about it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:17 PM on April 25, 2006

edverb, the resolution to which you refer is a resolution introduced by a member of the House, not a resolution passed by a state legislature. The House Rules Manual includes Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which in Section 603 describes the various methods on instituting impeachment proceedings in the House:

In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. [edited for clarity]

For the proposition that a legislature may transmit charges to the House, Jefferson cites Hinds' Precedents of the United States Senate, Volume III, Section 2469. Hinds, in turn, reports as follows:

The impeachment and trial of Charles Swayne, judge of the Northern District of Florida.

A Member, rising in his place, impeached Judge Swayne both on his own responsibility and on the strength of a legislative memorial. ... On December 10, 1903, Mr. William B. Lamar, of Florida, claiming the floor for a question of privilege, said:

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the impeachment of a civil officer by this House is a question of privilege. I have made a joint resolution adopted by the legislature of the State of Florida a part of the resolution which I desire to submit to this House for its adoption. In pursuance of this joint resolution of the legislature of the State which I have the honor in part to represent, I impeach Charles Swayne, judge of the northern district of the State of Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors; and the resolution which I have prepared in accordance with former proceedings of this House in like cases....

In other words, as opposed to the claims of the article, there is no definite rule which requires the House to proceed with an impeachment when a state so requests. Instead, there is a precedent for the House to potentially initiate impeachment proceedings when so moved by a Representative who relies on a resolution passed by a state legislature. In other words, there is no formal mechanism by which the Illinois legislature can guarantee that the House will even notice its resolution.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:17 PM on April 25, 2006

Beware Neil Young.
posted by attackthetaxi at 1:19 PM on April 25, 2006

A state hasn't passed any kind of resolution as yet. This bill has been proposed by two liberal, Chicago based state reps. The chances that it will pass in the legislature are practically zero. It's a purely symbolic gesture suitable only for political grandstanding.

Nothing but sound and fury here. Move along . . .
posted by aladfar at 1:20 PM on April 25, 2006

This ties in nicely with today's loophole post.
posted by komilnefopa at 1:21 PM on April 25, 2006

Thanks for the clarification Monju. Please understand...enthusiastic though I may be about impeaching Bush, I am under no illusion that the House would act on the resolution of necessity.

It would be admitted and read on the floor though, correct? And people would talk about it (besides Neil Young and ummm, Arlen Specter, I mean.)
posted by edverb at 1:23 PM on April 25, 2006

Falconetti, exactly how is it meaningless that two states (and California isn't exactly unimportant) think so little of the President that they feel he should be impeached? That is in fact a very meaningful thing indeed.

It is meaningless on a practical level. I wish that weren't true and I would shed no tears if he was impeached, but it is just not going to happen. I can't find it, but we already had a thread about this exact little-known rule, as well.

On preview, I mean what SweetJesus said.
posted by Falconetti at 1:23 PM on April 25, 2006

Its about time something happened as whenever a Bush has been in power the division between the wealthy and the poor grows. According to Bush, the economy is growing, but not at the rate of our expenses and bills. More than half of all americans do not have adequate insurance or any health insurance. Yet the rich have so many tax cuts and loopholes, trusts, etc...
posted by dmaillie at 1:24 PM on April 25, 2006

Its about time something happened...

Nothing has happened. You will know something has happened if and when the Democrats re-take the House in November. Short of that, we're stuck with him.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:27 PM on April 25, 2006

What if he gets a blow job?
posted by bonaldi at 1:32 PM on April 25, 2006

Bush: Cheney's immunity idol

lazymonster wins. I just thought of this the other day too - Bush will never be impeached as long as Cheney is next in line to be President. You think energy costs are high now? We'd have to impeach Cheney first (if we can) and then remove Bush.
posted by SirOmega at 1:35 PM on April 25, 2006

When ever there is talk about impeachment someone pipes up and says something along the lines of "Like Dick would be better". I think impeaching the president would severely minimize the effectiveness of any vice president that would step into the job. Yeah, Dick is as big, if not bigger asshole then George, but the two are pretty linked and if one is thrown out the other would be pretty effectively sidelined.
So, indeed ITMFA. I'm all for it.
posted by edgeways at 1:40 PM on April 25, 2006

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Air Strike On Iran Could “Merit The Impeachment Of The President”.
posted by ericb at 1:41 PM on April 25, 2006

Two states, over 30 U.S. Reps, multiple cities, counties, and townships, and 1/3 of Americans?

That's not bad, and those numbers are increasing and will keep increasing as the truth continues to get surface, and the people tire of the the lies and spin of the Bushist hordes.

We've still got 1,000 days to go - a lot can happen in 1,000 days - especially if that 1,000 days contains a midterm election.
posted by Help Me Impeach Bush at 1:42 PM on April 25, 2006

bonaldi
posted by OmieWise at 1:44 PM on April 25, 2006

Bush and people around him have broken the law, and he should be impeached. However, strategically, let his approval continue to plummet. Even a Republican House and Senate don't like the guy--what's the last piece of legislation Bush got through Congress?

The longer Bush is president, the more Democrats at the national and local level have to gain. So don't impeach the guy. In his own jumbled phrasing, his political capital is totally spent. Indeed, he's way in debt and sinking faster all the time. Impeachment is perhaps the only thing that could marginally improve his legacy.
posted by bardic at 1:47 PM on April 25, 2006

I think it would be great to have Cheney as Pres. He’d be revealed for what he is and have a heart attack two minutes later.
I think the whole facade would fall if Bush goes down. He’s the keystone in the Rovian voussoir supporting the power in the administration. No front man, no front.

What bothers me isn’t Cheney, it’s that I see no real alternative in the Dems.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:48 PM on April 25, 2006

The longer Bush is president, the more Democrats at the national and local level have to gain. So don't impeach the guy.

So we shouldn't remove the drunk driver from behind the wheel, because his reckless and dangerous swerving makes the other drivers look safe and responsible by comparison?

Democrats should be elected on their own merits, not just because "Bush is bad and they're our only alternative".
posted by Help Me Impeach Bush at 1:54 PM on April 25, 2006

What bothers me isn’t Cheney, it’s that I see no real alternative in the Dems.

The Dems are almost worse in that a Democratic White House may create a "Mission Accomplished" relaxation in the politically active elements of American society, while virtually all of the problems facing the nation will continue to exist and tear it down.
posted by mek at 2:16 PM on April 25, 2006

Impeachment would accomplish very little (speaking as a Democrat) beyond pissing off a lot of voters--just ask the Republicans who did it to Bill Clinton. It would be a huge strategic mistake, and I gave up on political idealism a few minutes after the first jumbo jet hit the WTC. Maybe my children will have the luxury of having some.

It's a dumb idea, and it obfuscates the important issue--get the WH, the Congress, and (hope against hope) the SCOTUS out of the hands of a corrupt, decadent party. Replace them, for now, with the lesser of evils. Then we can start rebuilding.

Entirely MHO, of course. But waiting for a third party to solve our country's problems is idiocy as well.
posted by bardic at 2:20 PM on April 25, 2006

"In other news, Bush announced today that he is going to lower gasoline prices by temporarily suspending environmental rules governing gas blends and the pollutants their burning creates."

Loath as I may be to defend W, in this specific case I feel I must. *sigh*

He's trying to take a little notch out of gas prices, because apparently the switchover from MTBE blends to ethanol blends is causing logistical problems that are adding to the price - not to mention the mandated switch to low-sulfur diesel which is also contributing to that fuel's high cost.

The problem is that while MTBE can be added to the fuel at the refinery before it goes out via pipeline, ethanol cannot, as it absorbs water into the fuel which both ruins the fuel and damages the pipelines. So it has to be transported by rail or truck to the distribution nodes, where it gets added to the fuel as it's loaded onto the gas trucks. This costs a lot more money, because of the shipping.

The idea is to allow refiners and the states the leeway to burn a bit dirtier for a while until the logistics are better set up and the distribution nodes have a supply of ethanol built up.

There's more to it, of course, as for instance California is resisting the switch, claiming that ethanol is dirtier than MTBE (My senator at work), but out of all the crappy stuff that Bush is doing, IMO this one's not that awful, and is a fairly reasonable way to lessen our pain at the pump a bit, temporarily.

Of course, if the "temporary" relaxation becomes permanent, then it's just one more thing to pillory the guy with.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:24 PM on April 25, 2006

Hmm. I'm sure impeachment proceedings are going to begin - right after Fitzmas. Oh wait...
posted by Heminator at 2:27 PM on April 25, 2006

From the Chicago Sun Times article that Smedleyman linked:

State Rep. Karen Yarbrough (D-Maywood) has sponsored a resolution calling on the General Assembly to submit charges to the U.S. House so its lawmakers could begin impeachment proceedings.

It would be the first state legislature to pass such a resolution, though the measure faces a dim future in a Republican-controlled Congress.

So the Illinois legislature is about to NOT pass a resolution that would not accomplish anything if they did pass it.

Great post!
posted by LarryC at 2:31 PM on April 25, 2006

The National Guard is in Iraq. What better time for the State Defense Forces to do some governmental house-cleaning?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:31 PM on April 25, 2006

Also, watch the interview with Sen. Ted Kennedy on The Daily Show. If he's half what he appears to be, he should be the leader of a new socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative political party.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:34 PM on April 25, 2006

Stop caring. We lost and we'll never get enough people to care enough to do a thing about it.

never underestimate the power of repeated frothing metafilter FPP's.

What if he gets a blow job?

the CEO of exxon-mobil gobbles him up nightly.
posted by quonsar at 2:59 PM on April 25, 2006

mek:

"The Dems are almost worse in that a Democratic White House may create a "Mission Accomplished" relaxation in the politically active elements of American society, while virtually all of the problems facing the nation will continue to exist and tear it down."

While Bush is in, 1) any serious attempts to address the problems are stymied at almost every turn, 2) because of 1, few are even trying to address the problems right now, because they can't do anything until they get the roadblock out of office.

So I think even a major case of "Mission Accomplished" relaxation would still result in greater attention foxused on fixing the problems than is currently the case. There would be less shrill hyping of the problems, sure, but more action. Because right now, there isn't any action.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:01 PM on April 25, 2006

What if he gets a blow job?
posted by bonaldi at 4:32 PM EST on April 25 [!]

Not likely
posted by darsh at 3:08 PM on April 25, 2006

I think it would be great to have Cheney as Pres. he'd be revealed for what he is and have a heart attack two minutes later.

I think of Bush as Cheney's familiar. And like in all fantasy fiction if we destroyed his familiar Cheney would rapid decay before our eyes. He would be revealed in his true form as one of the many tentacled reptilian elder races of Ancient Ones:

...as Bush fell the crowd gasped. Then, in the dark corner of the staff room, came a cry not heard on this world since before men walked the formed continents. "Nooooooooo..." hissed the Vice President in an unearthly wail. Steam and vile green putrescence issued from the black viens forming in his shrinking face.

What bothers me isn't Cheney, it’s that I see no real alternative in the Dems.

I agree. And this is one of the reasons why there are not throngs of people camped out in the mall screaming for blood.
posted by tkchrist at 3:09 PM on April 25, 2006

WTH? Is this some strange parallel-universe metafilter, where a thread criticizing El Presidente can be around for several hours without PP or D**s turning up to defend the saintly one against all enemies critics, foreign and domestic? What happened, did I miss a meeting?
posted by kaemaril at 3:26 PM on April 25, 2006

By far the most important safety mechanism this country ever installed for itself into government is the Presidential term limit.

It's non-negotiable. Thank God for it.
posted by Nicholas West at 4:06 PM on April 25, 2006

On top of that, all impeachment does is distract us Dems from articulating a positive alternative for the country. I blogged more about this here.
posted by arkhangel at 4:07 PM on April 25, 2006

LarryC: The "Republican-controlled Congress" mentioned in the article is the United States Congress. The Illinois House and Senate bot have a Democratic majority.

Still not going to pass, though.
posted by punishinglemur at 4:18 PM on April 25, 2006

Somehow I think it's a bad idea to have two impeached presidents in a row. Even if Bush is arguably destroying the country, the instability that would result from his impeachment isn't something to look forward to.
posted by matkline at 4:20 PM on April 25, 2006

Our only hope is probably some fellow in a Guy Fawkes mask.
posted by dopamine at 4:23 PM on April 25, 2006

Back in '73 there was a very popular newspaper cartoon that ran for months.

It was a giant peach with legs running after a little tiny Richard Nixon, who was crying "Don't peach me! Don't peach me!"

Just thought I'd share that.
posted by Nicholas West at 4:23 PM on April 25, 2006

I stand corrected, thank you.
posted by LarryC at 4:25 PM on April 25, 2006

"By far the most important safety mechanism this country ever installed for itself into government is the Presidential term limit."

There's a lot of us who think these guys have figured out how to get around that. I'm still not certain, but I'm leaning that way. We'll see in 2008.
posted by zoogleplex at 4:27 PM on April 25, 2006

Best of DailyKOS...
posted by Dreamghost at 4:53 PM on April 25, 2006

In my opinion we've been in a constitutional crisis since Clinton's impeachment. (Including the Supreme Court's intervention in the 2000 election and the weakening of the checks and balances between the three branches of government.) He should have been indicted after he left office, not impeached. All of the people in Congress who berated Clinton and said no president should be above the law are conspicuously silent on Bush's breaking of the wiretapping laws, which was much more an abuse of presidential power than anything Clinton did. But his impeachment inoculates Bush, even though Bush's conduct is worse.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:57 PM on April 25, 2006

I just thought of this the other day too - Bush will never be impeached as long as Cheney is next in line to be President.

This is suggested every. single. time. any mention of Bush getting the boot is brought up. It's nonsense. Cheney is so transparently evil, so roundly disliked by everyone, that his assumption of the mantle would be like turning a rock over to expose the crawlies underneath. Bush is the malleable and (apparently, to some) likeable public face of the real wielders of power, and throwing him to the dogs would cripple them. The prospect of Cheney as de jure president rather than simply de facto as he is now should energize Bush's opponents to impeach the bastard, not give them pause.

Unless you assume the American public is even more dimwitted, oblivious and cowed than they already seem to be.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:59 PM on April 25, 2006

... perchance to dream:

1. Democrats regain power of both the House and Senate in the 2006 elections. Al Gore is elected on a write-in campaign as a representative from Tennessee and subsequently elected Speaker of the House.

2. Cheney and Bush are both impeached. Bush for violating FISA and Cheney in connection with the Plame leak.

3. The trial for Cheney is quickly pushed through. He is convicted and removed from office. Bush immediately appoints Karl Rove, who is unable to take office without approval of both Houses, per the 25th Ammendment.

4. Bush is subsequently convicted. The country is briefly without a President or VP. Under the terms of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House ascends to be President Al Gore.

... which is why the impeachment shouldn't happen before November. ;-)
posted by Mr Stickfigure at 5:03 PM on April 25, 2006

Well, if that dosn't work the states can get together and add an amendment to the constitution allowing for a presidential no-confidence vote or something.
posted by delmoi at 5:27 PM on April 25, 2006

*walks in with a mop, wipes the semen and spittle off the floor, leaves*

Carry on!
posted by Krrrlson at 5:29 PM on April 25, 2006

Krrrlson, LOL!
posted by ParisParamus at 6:43 PM on April 25, 2006

By far the most important safety mechanism this country ever installed for itself into government is the Presidential term limit.

It's non-negotiable. Thank God for it.


Here is how term limits get screwed (maybe).....

Terrorist attack in 2008 leads to Bush declaring some sort of state of emergency / martial law. Elections suspened until the threat passes...which it won't.

Illegal? Probably. Would it stop this bunch? No.

Just a thought.
posted by dibblda at 8:30 PM on April 25, 2006

WTH? Is this some strange parallel-universe metafilter, where a thread criticizing El Presidente can be around for several hours without PP or D**s turning up to defend the saintly one against all enemies critics, foreign and domestic? What happened, did I miss a meeting?

Wishes do come true!
posted by Falconetti at 8:30 PM on April 25, 2006

Stavros, nobody ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
posted by hattifattener at 8:30 PM on April 25, 2006

/disclaimer -- I think Bush should be impeached

That being said, the move to impeach Bush after Clinton does remind me of the whole US-USSR Olympics thing.

"We don't like your policies. We'll boycott your Olympics in 1980!"

"Oh yeah, we'll show you! We'll boycott YOUR Olympics in 1984!"

Someone wake me up when this long, dark national nightmare is over.
posted by frogan at 12:06 AM on April 26, 2006

What if he gets a blow job?

Tony Snow will say that the intern had some food lodged in her throat and the President saved her life. the "liberal media" will cheer just like they cheered for the Saddam-has-WMDs lie, and the Mission Accomplished speech
posted by matteo at 7:14 AM on April 26, 2006

*walks in with a mop, wipes the semen and spittle off the floor, leaves*


ah, Krrlsson the jizz-mopper. a truly fitting role.
posted by matteo at 7:20 AM on April 26, 2006

This is all a non-issue. Impeachment or no, nothing will change.

Corporations own your government. Until the legislative bodies lose the privilege of policing themselves, and effective election reform happens, the American people have no true voice.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 8:03 AM on April 26, 2006

Colbert said it best.

Corporations; official sponsors of the US government.
posted by 517 at 8:54 AM on April 26, 2006

And Vermont for #3! It's a veritable revolution.

Or something.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:10 PM on April 26, 2006

Hey matteo, are you somewhere in this lovely Milan rally?


posted by Krrrlson at 8:22 PM on April 26, 2006

Hmm. That picture reminded me of this ...

From Rob Newman's Apocalypso Now :

'I did a 26 city tour of the United States last year, and it was a very interesting time to be in the USA. I was in Louisiana in the deep south, and the guy who lived next door to where I was staying was reading the papers in the back yard. And it was the day that news first broke from Iraq of this joint Sunni and Shia united uprising against the US-led occupation. Same day there was news of an Africa union joint declaration condemning US foreign policy.

And the guy next door in Louisiana said to me, "I'll tell you this much about the United States: we are sure bringing about world unity. The one thing unites the entire planet: hatred of us. It's like y'all became one big nation called The Rest Of The World"

I said to him, "Well, actually we did. In fact, we've even got our own flag"

He went "Oh yeah, what is it?"

I said, "Same as yours, but on fire." '
posted by kaemaril at 12:05 PM on April 27, 2006