"Richard Nixon was almost impeached for clandestinely seeking to undermine his Democratic opponents (he resigned before he could be chucked out) and Bill Clinton was impeached for failing to disclose his sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky (the House of Representatives impeached him, but the Senate acquitted him, and he wasn't subsequently removed from office). It is therefore reasonable to query why impeachment proceedings against George Bush have only been countenanced so hesitantly and only now."
Lack of intelligence, integrity and courage, I'd say.
Nixon was impeached for an underhanded political strategy and subsequent cover-up; Clinton for sex and the subsequent cover-up. The case for impeaching Dubya is so clear--between outright crimes and subsequent cover-ups--that comparing the three would be like comparing two pop-guns to an atom bomb in terms of damage done. We impeached the bush-league stuff, why not the Bush itself?
And yet, the dithering--the craven, cowardly, cynical dithering--goes on.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment