--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:36 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> > > 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.
In a Democratically controlled congress, if impeachment of Cheney AND Bush was inevitable, the Democrats would never confirm a Republican for VP before Bush was impeached. That would make Pelosi the next president.
