Reply #32: Well the point is, that there is no crime worse than what Bush has done, so if not now, when? [View All]

drop the 'shall' discussion for now.... but just think about it this way... the Constitution states that Impeachment is there for some type of purpose, right? If we agree on that, then what purpose is there, if it is not used now? What could a President do, that is worse than he's done? I think Peter agrees, that Bush has done many horrible and illegal things that do qualify as high crimes; that's not the question. So, that being said, I think it is a legal obligation. It's as if a sheriff knows who committed a murder and decides not to press charges. He's employed to uphold the law. In this case, it's not like it's borderline. It's not like it's a close call, as to whether or not the things he's accused of doing would constitute a high crime. It's the highest of highs; I can't think of anything worse, short of putting people into ovens based on their religion, but he has come close to that with what he's done to the citizens of Iraq. and since Peter agrees these are high crimes punishable by impeachment, it is his obligation, in my mind. and what bothers me the most is his reason that he's more concerned about the party and next election than he is about the issue and the truth. the party already has control of both houses and they are still enabling the President to go around FISA, with some of the folks in Peter's Party voting for it??? That's what we're avoiding impeachment, in order to protect the Party? Maybe this fragmentation of the party that he fears is just what we need to clean things up a bit.