<p>
Xiggi, please explain:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now this statement gives me a feeling a deja vu. Those old enough to have been around during the Watergate era will recall Nixon had quipped that Agnew was his insurance against impeachment, arguing that no one wanted to remove him if it meant elevating Agnew to the presidency</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When Clinton was impeached there was little doubt the Senate would not remove him from office but the Republicans wanted Clinton to be remembered as the second president who had ever been impeached. If Bush is ever impeached it may well be a case of “what goes around comes around”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Asking those of us who think that Dubya is one of the worst presidents in history to “enjoy it” is a bit much - but we just might have to live with it!</p>
<p>Yourworld, look at the thread 277 (the one above mine)</p>
<p>This is what I wrote - the first line was quoted from Mr. B’s post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
There, captured in a nutshell, is the essence of this whole thread and 90 percent of the Bush bashing that has been going on … its PAYBACK time!</p>
<p>FF, I think there’s a nugget of truth to what you say, and it bothers me. The absolutely vicious, unprincipled nature of the right’s attacks over the past ten years on anyone who stood in their way - the swiftboat crew, the multi-million dollar nonstop persecution of Clinton, the prescribed attack language distributed by Gingrich in the early 90’s, heck, even the distortion of what Al Gore did or didn’t say - let’s face it: it worked. How tempting it is to respond in kind. </p>
<p>I’d like to think that cooler heads will prevail, but I am not hopeful. I’ve got plenty of disagreements with Bush on the merits, and I think he is a legitimate candidate for, if not the worst, at least the bottom five. But in terms of political success personal attacks tend to be more effective. I’d hate to see American political discourse devolve into a non-stop series of “tit-for-tat” but I’m not sure what can be done to stop it. I think you’re right – there is a definite scent of payback in the air. That’s always a risk when you play hardball - and the right has been hitting below the belt for more than a decade.</p>
<p>Please explain again what was wrong with the Swiftboat vets. That they wouldn’t fall into line behind your guy?</p>
<p>Cause they weren;t accurate and at least Kerry did his duty, unlike your chickenhawk guy who didn’t</p>
<p>Why did Bush shrick HIS duty</p>
<p>29% now and falling.,slip sliding away</p>
<p>Good Morning, CGM! Rolled off the couch again, I see.</p>
<p>"The absolutely vicious, unprincipled nature of the right’s attacks over the past ten years on anyone who stood in their way "</p>
<p>Kluge, are you really suggesting that vicious, unprincipled attacks are unique to the right wing?</p>
<p>No - just that they’ve been better at it for the past 15 years.</p>
<p>Unique, no, but prevelant, constant, yes</p>
<p>Doesn’t that make ya so proud?</p>
<p>And barrons, good morning…and stop being so snooty</p>
<p>At least my IQ is above room temperature</p>
<p>Too funny. No further comment needed.</p>
<p>FF, I am sure there is an element of payback among those who seek Bush’s impeachment.</p>
<p>For my part, I am just appalled at his shallowness and inability to grow in the job to which he was elected. Have you seen the movie “Being there” with Peter Sellers? Bush often reminds me of Chauncey Gardner who could only offer cliches as solutions to all of the world’s woes.</p>
<p>This notion of a domino effect in terms of democracy flourishing throughout the Middle East, if Iraq became a democracy, is a perfect example of Bush subscribing to a concept which has been pulled from thin air. First, if you know anything about the political leanings of the people in many of the Middle Eastern countries, free and fair elections would ensure the election of militant regimes that are hostile to the West - not unlike Hamas in Palestine.</p>
<p>Second, the notion that democracy is something that can be spread by example has little basis in reality. Take India and Pakistan - these are neighboring countries with much cultural commonality but the former has been democratic for decades and the latter has been run by the military through most of its existence.</p>
<p>But how can one expect Bush to make such complex judgements given his almost non-existent knowledge of geography, let alone geo-politics and his reported lack of interest in reading? So he relies on the neo-cons who have their own agenda.</p>
<p>“The people who people who still support Bush are the best evidence that we need to improve education in America. Impeach Bush.”</p>
<p>Yeah, and turn the White House grounds over to the resident quail-hunter? You must be joking.</p>
<p>I know, if he isn’t really asleep at the meetings, he should at least pretend he is paying attention-</p>
<p>o.k.,…no perfume for you,…</p>
<p>It doesn’t seem likely that Mr. Bush is even the leader within the White House; that others are really calling the shots. Disagree with the current Administration as I might, I would feel a lot better if there was more transparency; that we could hear from whoever was really calling the shots.</p>
<p>*There once was a President Bush
With policies he tried to push.
The people saw through him
And rose up to Boo him
For being a pain in the tush.</p>
<p>Beware a Big Dick with a gun
Whose eyes may be blinded by sun.
If he still shoots at will
More than pheasants he’ll kill.
Better run when the Dick’s having fun.*</p>
<p>If I know who you called, I know who is using which doctor, involved in which political campaign, who your clients and surpliers are, what church you use, what hours you keep, who uses phone sex, date lines, which internet access some people use, when they are home, who their friends are… sounds a bit intrusive for my kind of government… Is this what the conservatives support these days…Impeach Bush!</p>
<p>He turned me into a newt. Burn him!</p>