XPost: phl.media, pa.politics   
   From: artclemons@aolSPAM.com   
      
   Karen Y Byrd wrote:   
      
   > But here we go again. Knowing this/believing it are very different   
   > than expecting a impeachment-caused White House change.   
   >   
   > The problem is what it was before: removing Bush leaves   
   > us with Chaney!   
      
   Nobody said that Cheney could not be impeached first, or that Bush's   
   replacement would be an improvement.  I'm just suggesting that Bush   
   actually has committed impeachable offenses as opposed to the Clinton   
   nonsense.  Besides forcing republicans to admit that Clinton's impeachment   
   was baseless isn't exactly something I would avoid.   
      
   Bush is a horrible president, he's in the bottom five for sure and likely on   
   the low end of the bottom five.  I think he's worst than Reagan and I   
   suspect republicans have forgotten all of the scandals and "forgetting"   
   Reagan did while president or that he too should have been impeached.  I   
   remind everyone that Clinton had no major scandals in his cabinet and that   
   Bushleague the first apparently could have had his sexual practices   
   examined closely too.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)