Dick Cheney is psychic...

[Displaced Flames fan]

I didn't say one was worse than the other Lanny. You went off on something I didn't even begin to comment on.

How could they build internantional credit for throwing Bush under the bus, quietly?

You can't exactly take credit for something you are trying to keep quiet. Either way, quietly or boisterously, it wouldn't be a smart move at all. Nothing like starting off a new, fresh era with more divisive action. It's time to unite, not divide and spread more hate.

[Dogbert]

Question: If a President ever was impeached, who'd take office? Would the job go automatically to the VP?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

There has been a public outcry against Bush. Not sure what you're talking about with that one.

Well from up here the outcry hasn't seemed to have any effect. The president's support is way down, as is congress's, yet the administration is still lying through it's teeth. And the sad thing is, the only solution to the problem looks to be an election. I don't wish to start an American bashing, but it definitely needs a good injection of democracy and accountability.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Dogbert

Question: If a President ever was impeached, who'd take office? Would the job go automatically to the VP?

That's how I understand it.
When Nixon resigned before he could be impeached the Vice President [Ford] took over.
The original Vice president [Agnew] had already resigned after being convicted of tax evasion, so I believe the leader of Congress became Vice President [Ford] and eventually President.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Now you're talkin'!

So...I suppose you and Hemi-Cuda think that Clinton and his cabinet should be tried for bombing Belgrade?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I didn't say one was worse than the other Lanny. You went off on something I didn't even begin to comment on.

I didn't mean to make that sound like I was replying just to you Dis, but in general those that may have a very short memory, or maybe not quite aware of the scope of Bush's transgressions while in office. Also wanted to point out the difference between Clinton's situation and the Bush situation.

How could they build internantional credit for throwing Bush under the bus, quietly?

There are a lot of countries in the world that have distanced themselves from the United States because of Bush's actions. There are a lot that would like to see the United States assume the moral high ground again. The only way to achieve that moral high ground would be to distance the new administration, and the country itself, from Bush and his administration. I feel this best way to do that would be to appeal to the world through the use of a world body that the United States, under Bush, has completely ignored and even shown great contempt for. That body would be the World Court. If America were seen offering up one of its own it would be viewed as being willing to do the right thing.

You can't exactly take credit for something you are trying to keep quiet. Either way, quietly or boisterously, it wouldn't be a smart move at all.

Why not? The Bush administration has been doing it since they took office. They are the most secretive administration that has been in office in my life time, and they routinely take as much credit as they can for anything they perceive as being good. And I disagree that it wouldn't be a smart move. I think it would be the best move America could make at this point. The confidence in America is at an all time low all around the world. That needs to be restored first and foremost. Good lord, look at the mess international affairs are in because of the absolutely brutal job Bush has done manipulating Iraq. America needs friends right now, and the only way to earn the trust is to make a big public display of humility and what many would consider the right thing to do.

Nothing like starting off a new, fresh era with more divisive action. It's time to unite, not divide and spread more hate.

You look at it from the perspective of the United States and getting the red and blue states to see eye to eye. I look at it from a world perspective and trying to get America back on the moral high ground and begin the healing internationally. The world has become a much more dangerous place since Bush bumbled his way through the last 6 years. That needs to be healed or America could find itself in a world of hurt. I agree that healing needs to begin at home as well, but that is not going to happen with the next administration. It's going to be decades for the damage to be repaired in America, if it can ever be repaired at all. With all the divisive agents prevalent in this country, a change is not coming soon.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

So...I suppose you and Hemi-Cuda think that Clinton and his cabinet should be tried for bombing Belgrade?

That was a move made under agreement with the United Nations, in support of a United Nations peacekeeping effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bo...sy_in_Belgrade

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

That's how I understand it.
When Nixon resigned before he could be impeached the Vice President [Ford] took over.
The original Vice president [Agnew] had already resigned after being convicted of tax evasion, so I believe the leader of Congress became Vice President [Ford] and eventually President.

Yeah, that's how I figured it'd work.

I don't see what impeachment would accomplish. Honestly, if I go see a ventriloquist's act and it sucks, I don't blame the puppet.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

That was a move made under agreement with the United Nations, in support of a United Nations peacekeeping effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bo...sy_in_Belgrade

NATO had a backing (a resolution) of the UN Security Council to use force in Yugoslavia? Did China and Russia not veto the resolution? Do you have a link?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Well from up here the outcry hasn't seemed to have any effect. The president's support is way down, as is congress's, yet the administration is still lying through it's teeth. And the sad thing is, the only solution to the problem looks to be an election. I don't wish to start an American bashing, but it definitely needs a good injection of democracy and accountability.

I think you're right mostly. Many of us who aren't rabid Bush haters but are extremely disappointed in what has transpired...especially since the last election...are eagerly awaiting a change. One thing people outside of the US need to keep in mind is that if we elect another Republican administration it is not an approval of what Bush has done nor is it a mandate for 4 more years of the same.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

That's how I understand it.
When Nixon resigned before he could be impeached the Vice President [Ford] took over.
The original Vice president [Agnew] had already resigned after being convicted of tax evasion, so I believe the leader of Congress became Vice President [Ford] and eventually President.

According to the constitution, in the event the President can no longer execute his duties (in the event of sickness, death, or impeachment) the Vice President assumes the powers of office. In the event both the President and Vice President are unable to execute their duties, the Speaker of the House assumes the duties of the President's office. If Bush and Cheney were both removed from office, Nancy Pelosi becomes President. There is the other reason why the Democrats do not move forward with impeachment proceedings. Cheney would become President, which is worse than Bush, and if both got taken out through impeachment proceedings, Pelosi and the Democrats would inherit the quagmire of Iraq and all the negatives the Bush administration has working against them, and without a mandate. Impeachment is not a probability just based on the potential for it to be worse for the Democrats than it is now. As sad as that is, that's likely their reasoning for not pushing forward on impeachment.

[badnarik]

So democrats don't want to inherit the quagmire of Iraq and the negatives of the Bush administration? Does that mean they won't be running a presidential candidate next year? Doesn't that mean they just don't give a , or that they don't have any better ideas, or that they have no real reasons for impeachment? I must be missing something.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by badnarik

So democrats don't want to inherit the quagmire of Iraq and the negatives of the Bush administration? Does that mean they won't be running a presidential candidate next year? Doesn't that mean they just don't give a , or that they don't have any better ideas, or that they have no real reasons for impeachment? I must be missing something.

You're right, you're missing something. If the Democrats inherit the mess right now, they do so without a mandate for change. If they do so after an election, and they clearly win on their platform, they assume power with a directed mandate. The differences are significant. It's like being promoted to an "acting manager" rather than being hired directly into the position because of the ideas you present during the interview. As an acting manager, you are on a very short leash and have no ability to implement change. As a hired manager, you are normally expected to enact change. Again, massive difference.

If the Democrats take power through impeachment they assume power with no mandate. They are on a short leash. If things don't improve prior to the election, they probably do damage to the potential of receiving the mandate that would allow them to make change and take things in a new direction. Politically, it is better to let things to continue the way they are and not do damage to their chances of taking the White house in the next election. They will be able to do more after the election than they could after impeachment.

[badnarik]

i understand what you're saying with the mandate, but it still sounds like a cop out to me. the congress just sitting on the mess isn't going to help them too much on election day is it?