But why, why does it take a brick house...or a brick house and senate to fall on that twit we have for a resident to get the message and decide it's time to acquiesce? Why does he realize NOW that stem cell research might be viable, that the minimum wage really should be raised, to get rid of the war monger he had as SoS and to realize he really DOES need an exit plan out of Iraq...some kind of plan and not a sound byte.

I get a slight bit of satisfaction knowing that they're so blindsided in the White House. They are and have been so completely oblivious to what the country needs and what the people want they really didn't see this coming, but that satisfaction is completely tempered by the fact that a) they probably still don't get it fully, really and b) the fact that they've been so obtuse for so long that it's wreaked so much havoc and pain and, literally, destruction on so many levels that coming back from it will be difficult and probably even more painful.

I truly hope, when the numbers all come in and the dems really control both houses that they start impeachment proceedings and aren't swayed by moderates. That they do the brave, if unsavory thing, and get this moron and his cronies out of the White House.

Hey Dolly you're so fine
You're so fine
you blow my mind
Hey Dolly
*boom* *boom*
Hey Dolly
*boom* *boom*
:{)}

If I could, I'd give your post a star, Dolly :)

I completely agree... but at the same time, I can't help but wonder if Rummy's resignation was a planned strategy for when the dems took Congress back. Bringing in Gates while the GOP is still in power is probably 'safer' for Bush than letting the new Congress deal with Rumsfeld in January.

Anyone know much about Gates other than Wikipedia info? I went straight to Wiki when I heard the news, and I'm not convinced he'll be any better than Rumsfeld. I'm looking forward to January.

Just out of curiosity Dolly, how did you feel about the impeachment of Clinton?

Dolly, Bush and Co. were not blindsighted. They probably had Gates lined up long before the election, in case they did lose the House or Senate. I'm sure it would be better to have Rumsfield resign before the Democratic House came after him. Besides, they just replaced him with another "Friend of the Bush family", or somebody that worked for his Dad. I heard this morning on NPR that during Gates Senate hearings for CIA Director, back in the early 90s, Gates wouldn't answer questions regarding the Iran Contra mess. So apparently Gates and Bush Sr. go way back.

If there are any changes in Iraq policy, it will come from the House and Senate pressure. I have my own theories of why we are in this mess, but don't expect Bush to change course on his own.

That being said, I don't think the Democrats should try to impeach. One, most Republicans will see it as nothing but getting back for Clinton. Doesn't matter if Bush ate a baby in the Oval Office on national television, a third of the population would only see it as revenge for what they did to Clinton. Two, if Bush went, Cheney would be president, and nothing would change except Cheney wouldn't even pretend to get along with others. Probably just curse and sneer at anyone who questioned him. And it would take too long, and too much energy to get them all out. Better to censure him and possibly threaten impeachment if Bush does not help repeal many of the laws passed recently that eroded our constitution. I don't think Bush will do it, and if he lied to a Republican Congress about what he was doing, you can be assured it will be business as usual behind the backs of a Democratic Congress. Finally, it was moderate (and some consevative) Republicans and Independents that helped switch both the House and Senate. If they use their new power to go after Bush like the witchhunt that was the Clinton Impeachment, it will be sooner than later before these people move back into the Republican camp. Impeaching Bush and Co. will be a hollow victory if Frist is elected president in 2008 and given a Republican House and Senate.

In the next two years, Reid and Pelosi should move to resolve the Iraq mess, undo some of the mess rubberstamped over the last six years, and most important to me, rein in the federal spending. Keep Bush a lame duck for the remainder of his term, but let history condemn Bush. Expending all their energy bringing down Bush at this point would not help America, nor the Democratic party.

To quote a bumpersticker: I'd rather have a president that screwed an intern than one that screwed a country.

Infidelity is not a reason to impeach a president, if it were, then there's a very, very long list of past presidents who should be impeached, Republican and Democrat. Bottom line there is, the Elephant's didn't have anything else to go after him over and apparently, most of the Republicans can't stand the light of scrunity on their own personal (or professional) lives (Foley, to name just one). They remind me of cockroaches that scurry away when the light comes on.

You make very excellent points. I read an interesting article this morning on what the Dems should focus on right away and impeachment wasn't among those items and for good reason. I can't quote the article from rote, but I'd forward it to you if you're interested.

How about perjury under oath? Most people said if he'd just come out in the open from the start, instead of waffling and lying, it never would have gotten that far and would have disappeared within a week.

He wasn't impeached for infidelity. He was impeached for lying under oath. Repeatedly.

He wasn't impeached.

I don't believe that if he hadn't lied that it "all would have gone away." However, he shouldn't have lied, but then I believe he shouldn't have been been put in a position of lying over something that had nothing to do with the running of this country.

I'd like to put many of the Republicans on the stand, under oath and I can guaranee there will be lies and purgery. In fact, it did happen during the IranContra Hearings and Reagan's "I do not recall" (repeatedly) but no one can believe that Reagan could do any wrong (for some reason which I cannot figure out) and of course now we just blame it on the Alzheimers.

Actually, he was impeached. But, he was acquitted and never removed from office. (Read the definition of Impeachment)

Sure, but then stop saying he perjured himself as he was aquitted. (Please see the definition of acquit

But the real issue here has nothing to do with Clinton, he's not in office. This was about the current regime we have, and while it's a a popular tactic to try to distract people from focusing on the current flaws and corruption in our government by pointing to past errors in judgment, it doesn't change the fact that we have a HUGE problem with the current administration and it's cancer of corruption.

The hoopla over a little infidelity was crazy and uncalled for. Okay, he lied so what. He lied to try and cover up an infidelity. Not exactly an unusual occurance.

He did so much more that he should have faced charges on that he skated by. The selling of secrets to the Chinese and the selling of pardons are just two things I can think right off hand that he should be sitting in jail for. However, people forget all the true crimes he committed (or "allegedly" committed) and focus on one that is complety minor and inconsequential to his ability to run the government.

Dolly, you are right in what you are saying, but I don't see any other administration that wouldn't have a "cancer of corruption". Until your father is elected President we will be stuck with corruption. I don't see the possibility of a "Mr. Smith" going to Washington.

Clinton DID perjure himself. He WAS impeached. He WAS aquitted. He did many immoral, illegal, questionable things in office. He also did some good for this country. So he had an affair and lied about it. So what? SO WHAT?!? If he's willing to betray his own marriage and lie about it, what does that say about what he's willing to do to his country? My God, people! Would this behaviour be acceptable for someone in your life? But don't worry. I'm not unilateral in my disdain and disgust. Bush DID lie about why we were going into Iraq. He's done some very questionable things so far in office. Some of his choices for the people he's surrounded himself with have been questionable. But he's also accomplished some good things in office. My problem is that the Democrats are no different WHAT SO EVER from the Republicans. The Democrats find ways to defend and excuse their party members and their screwups, while vilifying the Republicans. The Republicans find ways to defend and excuse their party and messes, while vilifying Democrats. Stop being blind sheep, bleating for your own particular Napoleon. It's absolutely OK to b***h and complain about your leaders. It's your right and sometimes, it's your duty. But quit being so stupidly blind as to not see what's wrong with your own particular choice of leadership. 2many, you're right on the money. I'd give my right arm for a Mr. Smith, but unfortunately, he's a product of Hollywood. If there really is a real life Mr. Smith out there (Republican, Democrat or Independent), let me know. I'll work my ass off for him.

Woop woop.

Its damn annoying moving home.
Id like to voice my opinion yet I know it may quite possibly be a few weeks before im online again and I wouldnt want to be chastised in my absence.

(He lied - trust matters - he messed it up) :P

Everything you said was 100% true. This part, however, I have to disagree with. Yes, he had an affair, yes he lied about it. How can you correlate that fact with his ability or lack of ability to run the country or his willingness to betray his country?

Clinton was hardly the first president who cheated on his wife.

We all know about Kennedy's multiple escapades with mobster girlfriends, Marilyn Monroe, Angie d**kinson and many many many many more

FDR had an affair with Lucy Mercer. This started before he was president but still a politician and continued on after he was in the White House. The media didn't report it because they didn't feel it was anyone's business (yeah times have changed since then)

Warren Harding was quite the ladies man (of course he was no match for kennedy, but he did alright) Carrie Phillips, one of his mistresses was paid $20,000 by the GOP to keeo quiet. ($20k in the early 1900's was a large sum of money)
Nan Britton, another one of his "friends" gave birth to his child while Mr. Harding was a senator. She continued to have an affair with him after Harding was president.

Not to mentions hundreds of millions of men and women who have affairs, and yes lie about it. This doesn't mean they aren't good at their jobs or that they are unable to be honest or trustworthy about other things.

Lying about having an affair is one thing.

Let's pretend that you have had one. If your spouse asks you about it, you will probably lie.

However, if you were under oath, in front of the grand jury, and on National TV at the time, would you still stick to your lie?

No I wouldn't and he was idiotic to do so. I am merely saying that having an affair, lying about it, and lying about it under oath does not mean that person is incapable of being good at his job whatever it is. Nor does it mean he would not be loyal to the company/country whatever.

Clinton got off scott free for many many blatantly illegal activites. Lying under oath about an affair is the least of the attrocities that he was responsible for.

Sorry, lets back up...

Why do you think we should Impeach Bush? What laws did he break?

Just for starters: