Put Bush on the stand....and ask him if he's DRINKING on the job

I've brought this up before...but after hearing details about Clinton's book and putting things into perspective just what lousy scum bags these right wing neocons are....I think it's time to consider a very relevant approach to getting Bush out of office.

#1 - I do believe he is still drinking. Call it instincts....call it having "been there" and knowing friends....I see the way he walks now is different...and I see the fact that he can't even function without a teleprompter not necessarily an indication of his 6th relative intelligence level, but probably more of an indicator of some continued drinking.

#2 - All that is necessary is an insider to confirm the theory. Exact equivalent of Monica Lewinsky. Get someone to bring it forward, aka "Tripp"....

#3 - All that is necessary is to confront him with it publically. Have him deny it of course, but then press to put him on the stand and testify whether or not he's been drinking on the job.

You think I'm being funny? I'm not. We have a president in office who is an admitted alcoholic till the age of 40 or better...and there is, based on sheer statistically evidence, a very likely chance he is still drinking on the JOB, making key decisions in a non-sober state.

When you put this all into correct perspective, this IS a valid reason for impeachment as compared to what Clinton went through.

Clinton was NOT allowed presidential discretion in his personal sexual conduct.
Should Bush be allowed presidential discretion to drink while on the job?????

Don't think so.

Is having sex during a 4 year term against the law.

Wake up!

All he has to do is LIE UNDER OATH.

Public pressure is sufficient to want to drive to such a showdown....afterall...with our society becoming more and more morally conscious....do you think it's morally correct that our president is DRINKING ON THE JOB!!!!!!!!!

But I don't think that drinking has the same salacious appeal that sex does. Nobody's going to put Bush on trial for drinking.

I think this has the potential to become a real powerhouse....especially before the election.

Although I'm suggesting we use the same "dirty tactics" that have been used against us in the past...don't get me wrong....I DETEST the notion of him drinking on the job.

I also DETEST the notion that others around him are very content with this entire arrangement because they're all basically drugged up on the war culture and take a specific "f you" attitude to anyone that doesn't think along their way of thinking.

I think you've dismissed the idea before you imagine how it could evolve rather gracefully in discussions within the media and then reach a cresendo just as it did with Clinton.

No salacious appeal? Come on! So long as we don't crucify alcoholics, I'm all for it.

He never even made it to Step One.

:shrug:


I think he's still a drunk, actively drinking. Seen too many others try to 'pass' like he's trying to.

Back him into the wall.

Do you think Mr. President that this had any effect on your review of information prior to the decision to go to war?

I also pointed out that it HAS to start in the same way....an insider giving way.

But you can bet your A!! that Laura would go along with it, the Stepford Wife.
You can bet that Cheney and the others would go along with it.
But there has to be someone that can be approached that is close enough but outside this circle of protection....

does when they are on duty? Or are they to ofar away to hear him?

but you seem to be suggesting playing hardball with the repukes. Don't you know that the Democratic party doesn't do that? We play nice, and we like to roll over when the other side attacks us. It's just the way we are, and look how successful it's been!:puke:

Could be he's back on the nose candy.

Since he's basically a Federal employee shouldn't he be subject to (not so) random drug testing?

Said half tongue-in-cheek but not totally.

However, as someone pointed out, I guess you can't be fired from the job of President, like every othere job on this planet, for drinking on the job. Also, it would take a prosecutor with the sleazy ammorality of Ken Starr to put him under oath for this and I don't think our side has anyone who would stoop that low.

Check that walk out....the one that it looks like he's being so purposeful to walk straight.

At first I thought he was trying to look pumped up...cause I know he goes to the gym....but this is a bit too weird....take another look at that.

In many interviews.....I see that smirk getting peculiar looking....and the general defensive nature of his attitude is very fitting to someone that's actually got a half dozen drinks in them to begin with.

Yes he's cocky ...and yes he's going to be on the defensive now....but the snaps and there's plenty more which are indicative of that "detached nature"....

He's a loose cannon.

I was talking to a guy in the office and he said there IS background stuff that could be brought together on this....here's just one of many

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/000605.html

Just takes a CONSENSUS of opinion...and I think a willingness for someone to step forward and do the "dirty work".

The Clinton perjury trap was rather impressive and he fell right into it. He was involved in a civil suit where sexual misconduct was relevant. So he was asked about current possible misconduct and lied. Therein lies the perjury. And they had evidence to prove it (the blue dress).

What is your plan for getting Bush on the stand? Or is this just some silly fantasizing?

Him drinking? Good luck with that.

They are the ones washing the bourbon out of the teacups and finding the hidden bottles. Many alcoholics who claim to have quit drinking keep stashes around the places they frequent. The best one I heard of was keeping beer in the toilet tank. They could run the shower and pop a cold one out of the tank to get a start in the morning.

And never should have stuck in the first place.
You generally dismiss the intent here as "silly fantasizing"?
Not so...I'm dead serious....and the approach does not necessarily have to follow the exact template of what happened to Clinton.
But I'd bet there could be some parallels.....

1. Acting "irresponsibly"...whether due to blackouts or whatever...this type of behavior simply has to be related to the drinking...not the general attitude that he's just stupid.

2. Act in any leud way to those around him....this creates the potential for someone to possibly come forward of potential "Lewinski appeal".

This could take on all sorts of twists. It could begin out of true concern for rehabilitation. Anyone in congress having seen a growing concern emerge somewhere in the public domain could start the ball rolling by stating that "we certainly hope this is not true...and if so hope that the president would be keen enough to seek professional help". Once the general concern is out there....don't underestimate what might suddenly come out of the woodwork.

Notwithstanding all these possibilities...there is still the "court of public opinion" that could turn very quickly if they got any real notion that he's back on the bottle. The public generally believes that he has been completely rehabilitated....however the odds of that being true are statistically very low. Anything which smells of a rat could be quickly embellished by the swing voters as sufficient concern......

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/perjury.htm

Making the Perjury Trap Argument

A Perjury Trap is not a technical loophole for a criminal to escape justice through procedural trickery. A Perjury Trap is an artificial crime manufactured by a prosecutor who can't win his case through legitimate means. In this case, the President committed no crime. Starr, having found nothing else to go on, attempted to manufacturer a crime by first questioning the President about a subject of extreme embarrassment and forcing him to put his family and marriage in jeopardy as well as his friends, associates, his lover Monica, and the Democratic Party.

Starr, using the unlimited resources of the United States Government, employed every means he could to play with definitions of words and to use trickery to get the President to say anything that when taken out of context could be twisted into something that could be construed as perjury to those who are the enemies of the President. So weak is their claim that the Republican Congress published the private conversations and secret Grand Jury testimony on the internet containing explicit sexual details in order to shock the public and to obscure the true nature of the facts. So desperate was Starr that he illegally leaked Grand Jury testimony so as to manipulate events in his favor. Then he proceeded to become an advocate for impeachment and his advocacy was so ethically offensive that his ethics advisor resigned. Knowing that the new Congress who was elected by the people after the scandal broke would never pass Articles of Impeachment, the 105th Congress bypassed the w ill of the people and passed it in a nearly party line vote. In order to get that party line vote, the Republicans offered up as human sacrifices two Speakers of the House who fell on their swords in order to support charges that the public finds ridiculous.

This has been an impeachment in search of a crime by people who are out to get the President no matter what the cost. When they failed to find a crime they used a Perjury Trap to manufacturer one and failed to even do that. Now we are asked to reverse two elections and remove a president from office who has the support of 72% of the public because he was possibly tricked into lying about a blowjob? I think not!

That's part of the disease, is the lying.