okay. wait a minute.so, yeah, here i am suggesting impeachment upon president bush. but i haven't thought about the ramifications of it. if bush is booted then cheney assumes the mantle. and cheney is vastly more intelligent, machiavellian, inhuman and driven. this wouldn't be nixon/ford. this would be...worse. much worse. there would be no waffling. there would be plundering and raping at a meteoric pace.
as a liberal democrat i should be loudly cheering bush's latest gaffe that actually qualifies a major crime. you know? finally, something that no one can deny. but yet...
i begin to wonder who leaked that bit of news to the papers. have you noticed that the white house has not announced an investigation on any paper's page one? bush condemned the leak. he even went so far as to say that that information was top-secret. and he couldn't believe that someone would leak it? think back to valerie plame and compare these two. with plame they promised an investigation and bush said that anyone involved in the leak would not be working for the white house anymore. then he amended that to anyone arrested. then he watered it down to anyone found guilty. eventually (in one speech) he changed it to convicted. this time there's nothing. and to me the question now becomes "is this the house of cards that was supposed to fall a long time ago and somehow hasn't yet?".
so, we boot bush and in comes cheney. and that scares the hell out of me. he's been running the show. so, who leaked the info? why do we always think it must be a person of conscience? i think there's a pony's chance of the leaker being someone greedier. someone more like cheney.
and suddenly i wonder if keeping bush in might be better than allowing cheney full access. what're the fucking odds on this one?
but i'm also the guy who stands in the drizzle up here and yells "piss harder". so maybe i'm not the proper barrister. and maybe sometimes a piss is just a piss.