On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:36 PM, authfriend wrote: > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:50 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: >> >>> --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" >>> <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: >>>> >>>> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Bush's SOTU was a bunch of hokum. We need to skewer his >>>>> regime and impeach them YESTERDAY! >>>> >>>> Why go to all that expense and time, just to have a few months >>>> with Dick "Go Fuck Yourself" Cheney at the helm? How will that >>>> improve things? >>> >>> A good point. You'd have to impeach them both, something >>> that may or may not be allowed by the Constitution to >>> happen simultaneously. >> >> Or make things so hot they have no choice but to resign, >> ala Agnew and Nixon. Cheney going first would be a great >> start. > > The SOTU has sort of overshadowed it, but recent > news from the Scooter Libby trial suggests that > Cheney may be in VERY big trouble over the Plame > incident, so that part of your scenario isn't so > far-fetched.
Yeah, that's the feeling I've gotten from several of the headlines I've seen. > > It's unlikely Bush would ever resign, but with > Cheney out of the way, there'd be one less obstacle > to proceeding with impeachment. Exactly. Would be interesting to see, though, if it ever came to that who would be Cheney's replacement. I would guess someone who the far right (at least in their imaginations) would consider politically unassailable--maybe Rice, Powell or McCain. Sal
