A plan that makes sense: Censure Bush, impeach Cheney

[scoopmeister]

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002619.html

"...
There is a precedent, although like most precedents, it is far from perfect. In 1834, the Senate voted to censure Andrew Jackson. Last night, we read some history of what happened, and it does seem clear that Jackson's offenses were mainly political and not as serious as the issues raised today. In fact, when the Jacksonian Democrats retook the Senate in 1837, they undid it.

That was then, this is now. A censure endorsed by the leaders of Congress, including some crossover Republicans, would spare everyone the trauma of impeachment and show that "the grown-ups" are re-taking control -- a move that many voters would remember kindly at the ballot box in 2006. The implied threat would be that Bush would need to govern like the "compassionate conservative" he promised to be, not the autocrat (and betrayer of the conservative movement, by the way) that he became -- and that he would need to consult Congress more often.

You want justice? Cheney is "fair game," in our opinion. Not only is the case for impeachment stronger here, but such a move -- which would not threaten the continuity of government nor undo the 2004 "will of the people" -- would thus not pose the political risks of going after a president. Instead, it would be little different from a federal criminal trial. Of course, given his health and other factors, Cheney would probably resign."

Check out the whole argument online -- it's not as satisfying as impeachment, perhaps, but it makes sense, IMHO.

[SnoopDog]

1. No one is above the law...

Impeach both evil murderous bastards. To not impeach bush says that it is ok to trash our Constitution.

Oh, and send these bastards to the Hague.

[f-bush]

2. Almost complete....

Not bad, I kind of like that....but after shrub leaves office hand him over to the International Court to be tried as a war criminal.

[Ksec]

3. Impeachment for * and Cheney

Nothing less. B** seems to always have a scapegoat. Aint that odd how he always has someone between him and the crime? You dont think thats an accident do you? I dont.

[SushiFan]

4. I'd impeach both of the disgusting Mofo's! nt

[bpilgrim]

5. sorry, but anything that leaves out the man at the TOP does not make ANY

sense, imho.

peace

[spindrifter]

6. I have to agree that impeaching both

is appropriate. * is where the buck stops. If he is "allowing" or condoning his Veep's impeachable actions, then he must also be impeached.

[carolinalady]

7. Total crap. The person at the top is just as responsible as the

rest. If he knows Cheney is the problem, he should be spearheading the effort to get rid of him. If the Godfather orders a hit and his faithful mobsters take some one out, does that make him less guilty?

:grr: :nuke: