--- In [email protected], "peterklutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > [mercy snip] > > > > The safest way to assess who should be in charge is to > > > consider who can deliver what we want. > > > > > > There seems to exist a number of alternatives (of varying > > > probability): > > > (1) The GWB White House is paralyzed by democratic sniping > > > (2) The GWB White House continues > > > (3) GWB is assassinated and Cheney takes over > > > (4) GWB and Cheney are assassinated and the Democrats take over > > > > Funny, you left out the alternative we were > > actually talking about: GWB is impeached and > > convicted by Democrats and Republicans, and > > a much-chastened Cheney takes over (or Cheney > > resigns and Pelosi takes over). > > That's number two - the alternative that for the meaningful > future will paralyze the executive government.
Oh, goodness no, not at all. (A) Impeachment and conviction are far more serious than just "sniping." (B) Impeachment and conviction couldn't be achieved without significant Republican support. (Perhaps you weren't aware of that.) (C) Impeachment wouldn't "paralyze" the executive government; it didn't paralyze the Clinton administration. And conviction would immediately put someone else in charge. > [snip] > > > > JStein - at this point in time in the way global > > > events unfold, do you really have the luxury of > > > indulging in petty vengeances? > > > > We sure don't. But then I wasn't the one who > > suggested assassination, you were. > > Life has become too short for others to clarify your intentional > misunderstandings and/or remarkable stupidity. Sorry my point was too subtle for you. > Consider yourself a lost cause. <snicker>
