*headdesk*

[kjpepper]

This deserves a special place on the "not really surprised, but WTF" shelf. Hmm, lying once about a consensual encounter with an intern vs. 935 times about the presence of WMDs in Iraq. The consequences of first being some gossip, embarrassment and an impeachment. The consequences of the other being almost 4K dead and 28K+ wounded... and no impeachment?

*dot dot dot* And this is where I employ my favorite line from The Lion King: "You know her, she knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everyone's... okay with this? DID I MISS SOMETHING HERE???"

Comments

[purpura.livejournal.com]

Well of course he can't be impeached - he didn't fuck anyone int he Oval Office...

[bloodandsmoke.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, lying under oath is illegal.

Lying to the American people, for whatever reason, is not.

[chirping-monkey.livejournal.com]

Legally one could make the case for treason. It's a little late in the game to start on that, and no one has the balls to take on the job. Even if someone did, it'd be very, very hard to make it stick.

I hear what you're saying, though.

Balls or No Balls...

[extrajoker.livejournal.com]

The Democrats don't have enough of a majority in Congress to accomplish anything the Republicans don't want.

Re: Balls or No Balls...

[bloodandsmoke.livejournal.com]

It's not just a Democrats versus Republican thing.

I hate the guy. He's an idiot and he's dug like six holes to bury shit in (like our economy, national credibility, ect.) The fact remains he hasn't done anything noticeably illegal, and trying to get Congress to agree to impeach him (the President of the United States) on grounds of Treason, when evidence is a little shaky there, is a bit much for anyone to ask. The Democrats wouldn't try such a thing even if they had a crushing majority.

The fact is you can't impeach someone for being unpopular. And while I hate the guy and would love to see him on his ass next week, kicking people out of office on grounds of massive stupidity (read: unpopularity) is a very, very dangerous precedent. One so dangerous I'd rather deal with him for the rest of his term than have him impeached.

Re: Balls or No Balls...

[extrajoker.livejournal.com]

Actually, my comment was a reply to chirping_monkey's reply to your original comment. My point is just that the Democratic majority in Congress isn't great enough to pull off a Presidential impeachment (so it's not a matter of whether or not they have the balls). I couched it in terms of Democrats vs. Republicans because, even though many Republicans are (shall we say) disillusioned with our not-so-illustrious President, they wouldn't as readily wish for his impeachment.

I get frustrated when people assume that, since they have a majority, Democrats should be getting things done but aren't because they just don't have the nerve. (This is not to say that chirping monkey was making this assumption; rather, her comment reminded me of things others have said.) Really, anything the conservatives don't like gets vetoed by the Wanker-in-Chief. (Yes, I hate him too. And, thanks to him, I now hate the word "veto." Particularly in the following context: "Ah will vee-toe!" With the inferred "Ah am the Decider!")

On the other hand (and at the risk of undermining everything I've just said), in December, the House approved, by an overwhelming majority, a resolution "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith" (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-847), so maybe it is a matter of not having any balls.

*sigh*