[Verginius Rufus]

How in the world would the GOP put pressure on the duly-elected President and VP to resign? And for what? They haven't committed any crimes.

Nixon had done illegal things (like obstruction of justice) and could have been prosecuted if Ford had not given him a pardon, whereas Bush would have nothing to fear legally as a private citizen. What will Charlie Rangel's articles of impeachment look like anyway? "Lying" about weapons of mass destruction? Signing the PATRIOT Act? Not preventing the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Listening in on terrorists' conversations?

All charges that might thrill the Democratic base, and might even be adopted by a Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee, but is flimsier than the case against Andrew Johnson from a legal standpoint.

The 'Rats just need to be patient. When Hillary is President, she'll have Bush extradited to the Hague to stand trial as a war criminal.

[kcflyer]

What really chaps me about this is the fact that Bush said last week that Rummy was going to be SOD for the rest of his term. He didn't have to say that, but I'm sure that comment alone pushed enough moderates away to hand Congress over to the Dems. And now we hear that he's been considering replacing Rummy for some time! This is a real "Bush Lied", and it cost us the Congress, for at least two and perhaps many years! I've always been a staunch Bush supporter, but I've got to say this is one of the most stupid things I think any President could do. If he would have replaced Rummy before the election or at least not defended him so strongly, it's cery possible that the election might have gone the other way. But what's done is done. Nice going, W.

[CFC__VRWC]

How in the world would the GOP put pressure on the duly-elected President and VP to resign? And for what? They haven't committed any crimes.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" pretty much covers anything that can garner a majority of votes in the House of Representatives. As far as putting pressure on the GOP, all it would take is an all-out PR offensive by the democrats and the media to herd enough of the public into supporting impeachment so that elected Republicans feel that they're putting their seats at risk by standing behind their President and VP, and in the true spineless, quivering form they've shown for the past six years, they'll run screaming for the tall grass.

What will Charlie Rangel's articles of impeachment look like anyway? "Lying" about weapons of mass destruction? Signing the PATRIOT Act? Not preventing the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Listening in on terrorists' conversations?

It would be John Conyers' articles of impeachment, and they're already drawn up. Of course the "charges" are crap, but do you really think anyone in the democrat party or the media cares about that? They want Bush gone now - they don't want to wait two years to see him in the dock at the Hague. And by the time the left finishes reporting on Conyers' "charges", they'll have the public believing that Watergate was the equivalent of a jaywalking ticket in comparison.