Administration critics, political and media, charge that by ordering surveillance on communications of suspected al Qaeda agents in the United States, the president clearly violated the law. Some even suggest that Bush has thereby so trampled the Constitution that impeachment should now be considered. (Barbara Boxer, Jonathan Alter, John Dean and various luminaries of the left have already begun floating the idea.) The braying herds have already concluded, Tenet-like, that the president's actions were slam-dunk illegal. It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that.
And then there's this, quoted from a Salon article (free, but you have to watch an ad to read this):
On Dec. 18, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, released a 250-page report detailing Bush's misconduct and, on his Web site, called for the creation of a select committee to investigate "those offenses which appear to rise to the level of impeachment." Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., said in a radio interview that he would support trying Bush. "If there is a move to impeach the president, I will sign that bill of impeachment," he said.The moonbats over at DU are all over this, as one might imagine. I spent some time this morning reading a few threads on this subject and it's all too typical. No link; I won't dignify the batards by linking to them.
When you come right down to it, Krauthammer is oh-so-correct in his observation that there's a unique combination of animus and ignorance exhibited by those people calling for impeachment. The animus originates with the 2000 election; everything else that has followed is simply a manifestation of the Loony-Left's outrage over their defeat in that election.
I'm hoping the Left continues with the impeachment clamor; I really can't think of anything that would mobilize the conservative base more than a drive for impeachment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Just be polite... that's all I ask.