Reply #17: Exactly [View All]

And since my real point was too subtle to be understood (as I knew it would be) I'll elaborate:

Impeachment is going to require proof. Proof, if indeed it does exist, will come from investigations. We all know the Constitution has been shredded,but who did it? Was it Bush and Cheney directly? Prove it. Bush has the claim that he was given bad inteligence to get out of the Iraq war fiasco, and without specific sworn individuals that will claim that Bush/Cheney pushed the issue, the 'official' guilt falls on Tennet - and he's already been taken care of. Case closed. Same thing with the torture issue - all that was made 'officially' legal by gonzales, and he's gone too. Bush/Cheney at this point can claim that they didn't know the real ramifications of what was going on, and that they were misled by their advisors. That argument works. Reagan was never impeached specifically because he used it.

Quit putting the cart before the horse. Impeachment is going to REQUIRE proof that Bush/Cheney directly did things, and not that their advisors did things for them. Unless you happen to have a document that has Bush's name on it, stating that he intends to break the Constitution, you are going to have a hard time arguing before Congress that he did have those intentions, and not that one of his advisors did it in his name.