DBWI: George W. Bush not impeached?

OOC: Although we can always retcon as misinformation, lying, or someone trolling. But where is the fun in that huh?

OOC: Was going to play it straight, but ANTIcarrot gives me an idea that's more fun.
Plumber, I was aiming at a different policy, but ... well see below.

Yeah - I don't see that getting past the senate. I've seen the videos three of those four 'american citizens' put online. I mean if you're standing next to the terrorists, and they're not lopping your head off, then you're either working for them, or the CIA. If you're working for the CIA, you've got nothing to worry about. (On this issue at least.:rolleyes:)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but police officers shoot americans dead all the time without trial, and no one bats an eyelid. I can see why the secrecy rankles, but too much openness puts the above mentioned CIA operatives in danger of getting their heads lopped off. Surely you wouldn't want Obama to basically pass death sentences on Americans in other countries now would you?

Though it is suspicious that the videos only appeared after congress voted... Hmm. Unless someone wants to claim they're faked, this may end up a damp squib.

Did you read Alex Jones' OLC memos?
 
Well, without his removal, we'd not have seen last Friday's articles of impeachment against Obama even drafted, much less passed.

How he thought he could get away with assassinating US citizens after the Bush impeachment will be a question historians will be asking for a long time.

(And pardoning Bush? For war crimes? I know Ford set a low bar, but that was just stupid.)

They passed the House of Representatives, so yes, technically, Obama is the third president in a row to get impeached. There's no way the Senate will take those articles up, much less pass them. Thank God for the Senate Democrats, and whoever decided you need a two-thirds majority in the Senate to throw out Presidents.

If we hadn't had that precedent for impeachment, maybe the House would have spent some productive time this session trying to prevent the latest crisis-by-design (is the debt limit up again, or it the mandatory penalties? Budget control axe? I lose track), instead of wasting time passing pointless articles of impeachment that they know aren't going to be considered by the Senate and will only poison any bipartisan goodwill left after the last few years. And people criticize parliamentary governments for over-partisanship and vitriol...:rolleyes:

EDIT: Also, maybe we should ask a mod (is it maverick who's responisble for post 1900?) to move this to Chat, might be getting a little political.
 
OOC: You think Obama would follow policies that got Bush thrown out of office?
(OOC: Given his drone policy OTL, yes.)
(Also OOC: The Sovreign Party is an original name- but you guessed wrong as to its origin or focus. A lot of those affiliated with the Tea Party went to it...but it's more a Religious Right party. (The "Sovereign" in question is God, not the states or individuals. I had to pick something that sounded better than "Creator's Rights" or "Constitution" or "American Independent."))
 
Did you read Alex Jones' OLC memos?
I've never seen any Alex Jones legal opinions, but I've heard plenty of Rush Limbaugh's legal opinions, and quite a few of Jon Stewart's too. I see no reason why I should value one any higher than either of the other two blow hards.:p

Is there some specific quote (preferably an alt history quote) that you'd like to question?
 
They passed the House of Representatives, so yes, technically, Obama is the third president in a row to get impeached. There's no way the Senate will take those articles up, much less pass them. Thank God for the Senate Democrats, and whoever decided you need a two-thirds majority in the Senate to throw out Presidents.

If we hadn't had that precedent for impeachment, maybe the House would have spent some productive time this session trying to prevent the latest crisis-by-design (is the debt limit up again, or it the mandatory penalties? Budget control axe? I lose track), instead of wasting time passing pointless articles of impeachment that they know aren't going to be considered by the Senate and will only poison any bipartisan goodwill left after the last few years. And people criticize parliamentary governments for over-partisanship and vitriol...:rolleyes:

I thought Senator Palin* is supposed to already be sharpening her knives....

I've never seen any Alex Jones legal opinions, but I've heard plenty of Rush Limbaugh's legal opinions, and quite a few of Jon Stewart's too. I see no reason why I should value one any higher than either of the other two blow hards.:p

Is there some specific quote (preferably an alt history quote) that you'd like to question?

Heh

I refer, of course, to the leaked memo's from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel Jones published. The ones that say the targeted killings are legal on US soil.


*Without the embarassing 2008 campaign, Palin finished out her term as Governor. In 2010, she mounted a primary challenge to Sen. Murkowski, beating her. As per OTL, Murkowski ran as a write-in candidate in the general election. But TTL, Palin recieved 41.03% of the vote, winning the election.
 
You are aware the Pauls were instrumental in the founding of the Tea Party movement OTL. Anti-UN and pro States-Rights is Paulite territory. I'm thinking the Circus of neocons in the Sovereign Party would unsheathe their claws if Iran blinked wrong. Good thing I'm with the Libertarians ittl

No, the Tea Party was an astroturfed movement that the Koch Bros. tried to start in 2002, and has its origins in brainstorms by the tobacco industry for a few decades now. I remember in early 2009 when it was a small, obviously phony movement that gained momentum when Fox started covering it on the daily.
 
Top