Bush Dismissal Of ISG Creates Possible Effort For Bipartisan Impeachment Effort - By Robert Parry

Time for Bush to Go!

By Robert Parry
December 8, 2006

George W. Bush had a point when he disparaged the Baker-Hamilton commission’s plan for gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq by saying “this business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever.” It’s now obvious that there can be no exit from Iraq – graceful or otherwise – as long as Bush remains President.

...................

Indeed, Bush’s cavalier dismissal of the key Baker-Hamilton recommendations creates a possible framework for a bipartisan impeachment effort.

A less confrontational approach could be Republican and Democratic pressure on Bush and Cheney to agree to sequential resignations, replacing Cheney first with a new Vice President who would then assume the presidency upon Bush’s resignation.

As unlikely – and extreme – as these scenarios may sound, the future of the American Republic may demand nothing less.

If Bush cannot come to grips with reality – and adopt a less ideological approach toward the Middle East – there may be no realistic choice but for the American people and their elected representatives to make clear that it’s time for him to go.

more at:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/120806.html

Is this guy stealing my posts, or what?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2882144

Much as I'd love to see impeachment, I don't expect to. There'd have to be immense pressure from outside Congress before the incoming Democratic House leadership would even let the process get underway.

his conclusions make all kinds of sense.

Some interesting quotes from his article:

"If people come to the table to discuss Iraq, they need to come understanding their responsibilities to not fund terrorists, to help this young democracy survive, to help with the economics of the country,” Bush said. “And if people are not committed, if Syria and Iran is not committed to that concept, then theyshouldn'tn’t bother to show up.”

Per me: Did he forget Saudia Arabia?


"Disruptions of Middle East oil supplies could wreak havoc on the U.S. and world economies. Plus, Bush might end up precipitating just the grim vision that he has long articulated – an interminable world war pitting the West against large segments of the planet’s one billion Muslims."

>snip<

"A less confrontational approach could be Republican and Democratic pressure on Bush and Cheney to agree to sequential resignations, replacing Cheney first with a new Vice President who would then assume the presidency upon Bush’s resignation."


This theory has been bouncing around my mind since the Iraq report was being discussed and considering the people in the selected group, Poppy sobbing hysterically, neo-cons abandoning ship, etc., it all fits a plan by repubs to get rid of bush/cheney and appoint a replacement before the next presidential elections get heated up.

at all, though. He doesn't have the strength or spine to withstand the constant attacks of an impeachment.

that Karl and Karen show him.

Impeachment may open the way for an international war crimes tribunal. Easier to indict a disgraced former official instead of a 'retired' one.

Need additional evidence?

Check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2645124

What I think we need to start doing is asking ourselves AND EVERYBODY ELSE WITHIN EARSHOT (whether it's at the checkout counter at the store, at lunch or at a break with friends or coworkers, during a phone call to a talk show or in a letter to the editor) is this: "Can we REALLY afford TWO MORE YEARS of this - or of him?" Start sewing seeds, spreading doubt. Building a case. Building awareness. Encouraging a desired response/result.

Andrew Sullivan started asking this last year (well, in his case, it was "can we really afford THREE more years of this?" - after the shameful debacle of Hurricane Katrina). It's a worthy question. In fact, he made a statement about it in his blog, as I recall, during which he expressed doubts, at the time, that people would relish the idea of three more years of this incompetence. I think that's something worth exploiting - and encouraging.

Plant the seeds. Sew the discord. Poison the well.

I expect that W would appoint brother Jeb as VP, subject of course to Senate confirmation. That's what the BFEE has wanted for years, and it would be their best chance to protect Poppy and W from the predations of historians.

Parents need to take responsibility for their young 'uns, ya' know!

Is he really telling us to impeachment him?
Like a person out of control, he keeps giving us reasons to intervene but we keep ignoring his cry for help.

How far does he have to go before someone take him serious and puts him someplace safe where he cannot hurt himself or others.
I tell ya, the guys begging for help!!!

That will be a day of celebration across the globe.

There are a few others. From kpete's OP:

Bush’s anger carried over past the election, according to an account by Salon.com’s Sidney Blumenthal. In December 2004, Col. Derek Harvey, the Defense Intelligence Agency’s senior intelligence officer for Iraq, informed Bush that the Iraqi insurgency was “robust” and growing, prompting Bush to turn to his aides and ask, “Is this guy a Democrat?” Blumenthal reported.



Even his base has come to realize Smirko McCokespoon's a nutjob.

First, there is the obvious problem of who Bush would select as the new VP. Now there will be people who say that PoppyCo could do the selection for him, but they seem to ignore one salient fact: Bush, as President, makes the final decision. He could defy his elders and actually name someone else.

Second, and to me the greater problem; the long term effect such a move would have on American Democracy. Employing this method makes it easier for such a thing to be carried out in the future. Imagine, if you will, a future Democratic President stuck with an intractable policy problem that must be solved rapidly. His proposal is bold and calls for sacrifice from the populace. His critics contend that the move will "destroy America". The initial portions of his policy do some harm to many, but the end result (still down the road) will result (he believes) in a greater good.

During that initial portion a group of unelected, influential individuals get together and issue a national report critical of the policy and recommend a reversal of it. As a result of the report, the President's popularity drops to all-time lows. Many within and without Congress believe that the only way to stop the policy is for the President and the Vice President to resign and then cite the Bush/Cheney resignations of the past.

There is a clear and well intentioned method already established for the removal of a President (and Vice President) in the Constitution. It's called Impeachment.

It would be best for the country, in my opinion, if the following procedure were used:

1) Congressional investigation of ALL no-bid contracts in Iraq and the connection to Cheney's office.

2) Department of Justice/FBI investigation, using the facts uncovered in step 1, leading to indictment of Cheney.

3) Resignation of Cheney. Appointment of a successor by Bush.

4) Impeachment Hearings on Bush.

5) Bush either goes through the Impeachment process or resigns. The choice is up to him.

6) The swearing-in of the new President (the Bush appointed Cheney successor) and a meeting with the leaders of Congress at which time the new President is told by those leaders; "Don't fuck with us, or we'll have your ass the same way."

7) 2008 Presidential Elections.


This method preserves the Constitutional process and is based upon past precedent: Nixon/Agnew/Ford.