« Failures Of Will | Main | Is al-Zarqawi Dead? »

November 20, 2005

Comments

Jeez ed: while you're fantasizing, you may as well suggest that Condi appoint The Flying Spaghetti Monster as VP. That way, when some redneck goober with a confederate-flag-pick-up-truck-headliner and an assault rifle blows her away, we'll have a real president.

My alternative? Indict Cheney, Impeach Bush and know that noone in the line of succession could be worse than what we've got now.

No one.

I suppose you're right, Xanax, but still..

President Hastert.

shudder.

Frankly, geoduck, I'd take my chances. Much as I dislike Hastert, I don't see in him the sociopathic character defects I see in W (or Cheney).

Edward: thanks, and I think I agree. -- I'd be definite about it if I weren't also worried about the precedent of impeaching two successive Presidents. I think that's deeply unhealthy, and it's a mark of how disastrous I think Bush is that that doesn't just settle the matter for me.

While I share Xanax's feelings (wish for a pony while you're at it, Edward: ponies are fun!) I have to point out another flaw in your plan: Condi Rice isn't third in the line of succession. From infoplease, the line of succession runs: Cheney, Hastert (Speaker of the House), Ted Stevens (as President pro tempore of the Senate), then Rice.

You might get lucky: Bush might be impeached, Cheney might be indicted: Hastert might then be indicted over the Abramoff scandal: but you're still looking at Ted Stevens for President, unless Tom Delay's case gets rushed through and he's cleared in a hurry.

Have "Will Power" become president.

As a Pastafarian, I enthusiastically second the nomination of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as Vice President of the United States. FSM for VPOTUS.

Rice? If Hadley did talk to Woodward she'll be in deep doo doo. Besides she really didn't do a very good job at the NSA. She only looks good in comaparison to the Colin Powell.

If I was looking to change the topic I'd let Cheney go and bring in Giuliani. He's an asshole but without Washington baggage.

edward: "Personally, I think the answer is for Cheney to resign, for Bush to replace him with Rice, and then for Bush to resign."

hilzoy: Ed's suggestion - that W voluntarily resign - is a far cry from impeachment... and utterly preposterous in the real world. Which is why impeachment seems the only alternative if we are to be rid of him. Unfortunately, given the current makeup of Congress, impeachment is equally preposterous.

She only looks good in comaparison to the Colin Powell.

And even then, only because right now the SecState isn't beeing actively thwarted by the head of the NSC.


I'll just make three comments:

1. Almost nobody outside of PNAC was ever united in the wish to spend a decade winning Iraq. The support for the war has been pretty much proportional to how easy people thought it is. You're not reuniting the nation behind the war; nobody's yet bothered to do it the first time.

2. I don't think Rice would work.

3. What makes anyone think that the U.S. will even be capable of this level of effort for the next five or ten years? Bush's screwups go much further afield than militarily. Wait until you try to run a mechanized army overseas without the fuel to do it. Or the economy to pay for it.

xanax: true.

Actually, I think the real world alternative looks something like this: any remaining adults in the Republican party leadership go to Bush and tell him that he either turns power over to someone of their choosing (think James Baker, for instance), or nothing he wants ever gets passed again. (A la Reagan after Iran/Contra.) Unlike Reagan, I don't think Bush would go for it, but it is, I think, the only hemi-semi-demi-realistic shot.

what about just impeaching Cheney? Who's with me?

I'm only half-kidding, and the reason for that half is the knowledge of its impossibility.

"any remaining adults in the Republican party leadership go to Bush and tell him..."

hil, i fear it'd be a small gathering...

oh, and I dissent from "Hastert couldn't be worse."

(OT: TtWD "stands by" his claim that I am a combination of Wallace and Duranty. Gotta love wingers.)

I'd be OK with Giuliani, Hagel, or (obviously) Weld. Make it so, Number One!

know that noone in the line of succession could be worse than what we've got now.

the ABB approach failed royally xanax...we need a better idea...

Condi Rice isn't third in the line of succession.

The plan is for Cheney to resign...then whoever replaces him is next in line.

Then Bush steps down.

I think this is much more possible than other folks, clearly. What could push it is an admission of letting conditions cloud his judgement and actually admitting he approved torture, then stepping down to restore honor and dignity to the office.

"the ABB approach:

sorry, ed, you lost me...

The obvious precedent: Agnew resigns, Nixon appoints Ford as VP, Nixon resigns. Ford was nowhere near the line of succession, was he?

the idea that no one could be worse than Bush is what led to the "Anybody But Bush" mentality that led many folks to criticize Kerry as that choice...not particularly the best person to be president, just someone who wasn't Bush...

(OT: TtWD "stands by" his claim that I am a combination of Wallace and Duranty. Gotta love wingers.)

Well, he's probably beside himself that he wasn't invited to be at noend.com. I guess he's going to have to choose some less obscure references if he wants to play with the big boys.

ABB: Anyone But Bush.

Even though it was clear by 2004 that George W. Bush was in fact the worst possible choice for President on all possible levels, and Anyone But Bush would be better, it failed - not royally, but Rovianly.

Edward: The plan is for Cheney to resign...then whoever replaces him is next in line.

If Cheney resigned, I bet Bush would think Karl Rove was the best choice to replace him.

ML: Ford certainly was not the finest POTUS ever but he was, IMO, a far cry from "a royal failure."

And you may be right, ed. But the ABB campaign strategy as "a royal failure" in the last election strikes me as ancient history.

"an admission of letting conditions cloud his judgement and actually admitting he approved torture, then stepping down to restore honor and dignity to the office."

This just doesn't seem even vaguely possible. W seems to see himself and his administration as paragons of honor and dignity. I can't imagine anyone with the juice to make him see the light.

Limit of my imagination, no doubt.

As to hilzoys suggestion (which, since she is so much smarter than I, is doubtless a good one): if the GOP leadership were to essentially threaten Bush with a permanent Congressional roadblock, I think he might welcome it.

Then he and Rove would have someone to blame for their failures.

Well, I predict that Usama bin Laden will save Bush's hide. Again. Either by slipping up and getting caught, or by pulling off a strike in the US.

hilzoy writes: "any remaining adults in the Republican party leadership go to Bush and tell him that he either turns power over to someone of their choosing (think James Baker, for instance), or nothing he wants ever gets passed again. "

I'm thinking instead of Condi, it would be better to pick Chuck Hagel.

Or if you want to go for maximal W mortification, replace Cheney with George H. W. Bush, and let Daddy take over.

By the way, ed, re your title: "Wanna Win the War? Sacrifice Bush"

"Scrifice" (giving up something of value?) hardly seems the right word.

Maybe "jettison"?

sAcrifice.

obvioiusly.

I see your point Xanax, but the title is a direct challenge to Bush's supporters.

Bottom line for me is that I cannot see how Bush can lead us to victory. If you're serious about victory, you should be serious about getting Bush out of there.

obvioiusly.

absolutiously.

sheesh.

edward: "the title is a direct challenge to Bush's supporters."

It's funny, edward (call it a scatoma), but I keep forgetting Bush still has supporters who need challenging/convincing...that's how far to the other side i am. hence the confusion.

The only hope for getting Americans to focus on the war we can't excape is to clear the decks by telling the truth about the war of choice in Iraq:

Fat chance.

Cheney -- "the insurgency is in its last throes."

The whole point of having Cheney in the VP spot is so that Bush will never get impeached.

I'm not going to write up my Full Evaluation Of What We Should Do In Iraq Now just now, if you don't mind, nor issue my War Plans, but I disagree with this:

...there can be only one end:

Victory.

I disagree with much of the text before and after this excerpt, but I believe this part is indeed the case.

I don't agree at all. I believe "victory" in Iraq, defined under most proposed conditions, is desirable. Depending upon which scenario is put forward, it might be highly desirable. And failure might be highly unfortunate.

But that's an incredibly long way from any definition of "necessary."

I can't for the life of me agree that even if Iraq wound up in the worst possible state, be it a festering ongoing hellish slaughterground of a battlefield for decades to come, or an abandoned land of terrorist camps, or an Iranian fiefdom, or the renewed state of a new tyrannical nuclear-missile-wielding strongman, or what-have-you, that this would constitute more of an existential crisis for the United States than Iran or North Korea is likely to, or than China is likely to, or a Seriously Bad Outcome Russia in a decade or two might come to, or than a pandemic bird flu that wipes out millions, or anything remotely even that series, let alone necessary to the survival of the United States. (Hint: even at their worst, neither Iran nor North Korea is apt to destroy the entire United States; I think that's a tad beyond them for the forseeable future.)

This seems like absolute crazy talk to me, and an utter confusion of the desirable and optional with the necessary and non-optional.

But what do I know? Presumably somewhere in the comments above I've not read yet I can find out why winning in Iraq is necessary. (Possibly Edward and I differ as to what "necessary" means.)

If it were "necessary," I don't understand why we don't have a draft. Hell, presumably we should endure a loss of two hundred million citizens gruesomely killed, if we have to. Because it's necessary. We have no choice! No price is too high! (They wouldn't let people say so in blog posts if it weren't true, you know.)

WTF?

"The second thing I read was Frank Rich's column in today's New York Times. It's available to subscriber's only, but I'll quote the relevant bits (I've retyped this from the print version...please forgive any typos)"

I find linking to it more useful, myself. At the least, cutting and pasting seems easier than typing, I'd think.

Edward: "Personally, I think the answer is for Cheney to resign, for Bush to replace him with Rice, and then for Bush to resign."

Jes: "While I share Xanax's feelings (wish for a pony while you're at it, Edward: ponies are fun!) I have to point out another flaw in your plan: Condi Rice isn't third in the line of succession."

Some sort of reading glitch, I guess.

I think Cheney should resign -- stating he has dishonored the office, and that he now regrets personally using his power drill on Iraqi prisoners, and then eating their hearts, even though it was recommended both by his doctor and his shaman -- and that Bush should appoint a pony as VP, and then also resign.

A pony with magical wings that will drop full-coverage, no deductible, health insurance on every person in the world, as well as a most excellent gaming computer, although when it drops it won't hit anyone and hurt them.

I think this is much more possible than other folks do.

Now you're talkin' GF; (especially the heart-eating part).
Finally, a man with a real plan!

Also, world peace, and Firefly back on tv with a contract for a guaranteed mimimum of seven years with Joss Whedon at the helm.

And it shall be forbidden by law to sell bagels that aren't real bagels, but mere bread doughnuts.

We must address the truly big issues.

1) Worse case scenario is Cheney leaving by hook or crook (to coin a pun) and Bush nominating someone so bad as to protect himself. DeLay, Rove, or someone both houses are likely to confirm, even if on pure partisan votes. The confirmation debate will not be pretty.

2) Cheney leaves, the Party PTB force someone acceptable on Bush/Rove. McCain or Hagel or whomever...an interesting discussion on who would be acceptable to Wall Street/Social Conservatives and potential 2008 candidates. Remember, Frist and Hastert have to approve.

3) Likely scenario, with strong hattip to BOPNews and Newberry(search his archives or "impeach"). DEMOCRATS WIN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE. Offensive caps intended, this is where all liberals' focus and energies should go. This means attacking Republican moderates like Peter King.

Once in control of a house of congress, investigation & impeachment full speed ahead. The point is not removal, 2/3 of the Senate is impossible. The point is to weaken and distract, make Bush irrelevant to domestic, and poison the brand "Republican" so as to win even more seats in 2008.

This does not, of course, win the war in Iraq, or prevent a dogwag in Syria. But Newberry, IIRC and I do not wish to misrepresent him, does not advocate leaving Iraq. He and I believe the Shia are not capable or willing to defend the oil infrastructure. He also thinks the withdrawal from Iraq (Keynesian deficit spending propping up the economy, anyone?) will inevitably result in a fairly rapid int'l monetary and economic collapse.

Sorry, this is too long. Dudes, there is no outcome that is not utterly catastrophic on a scale we are not capable of imagining. Bush did change the world forever.

I would say I had one too many negatives in the next to last sentence, but I can never not have too few negatives. Been down so long...

Why is nobody noticing the obvious.

In a climate of can-do-ness, over 1/3 of our military officers apparently do not think this is winnable?

Presumably somewhere in the comments above I've not read yet I can find out why winning in Iraq is necessary. (Possibly Edward and I differ as to what "necessary" means.)

OKAY. This is the discussion that we should be having.

Not "Murtha is a stinky-head defeatist," not "all those who question our will to prevail are loser-commies," not "Zarqawi is a six-legged beast bent on swallowing America whole."

Like Hilzoy, I'm bitterly divided about what the US can accomplish in Iraq going forward. I'd rather we'd never taken that great leap into the unknown, but, now that we've done so, I'd like to believe that we could figure out a way not to leave a smouldering ruin behind us. But I'm not holding my breath.

Like Edward, on the other hand, I believe that a failed Iraqi state would probably be a very dangerous place, one that attracted bad actors who would then not be containable to that region. There are many, many reasons to fear that a US withdrawal from Iraq would result in a civil war and a massive shake-up of the region. I think it was Bob McManus who once suggested that six months after the US military left, it would be needed again in Iraq to prevent further internecine massacres. (Here's one worst-case scenario, who do you think would win between the Turks and the Iranians?) And if Iraq is in any way serving as the 1980s Afghanistan of the 2000s--ie a rallying point for (some) international muslim holy-warriors--then the potential blowback could hit us even closer to home.

I understand these arguments, but so much of the often-cited consequences of our leaving seems as though they will develop or not in the next few years regardless of our troops' getting blown up on patrols by IEDs.

Like Gary, I'd appreciate understanding better how Edward defines and prioritizes victory in Iraq.

I'd appreciate understanding better how Edward defines and prioritizes victory in Iraq.

That's fair.

I've been asking others the same question across the blogosphere, hoping to work through the best ideas, given that the administration's definition is unclear.

Here's what I think.

First, let the Iraqis have the December 15th elections with as much confidence as we can afford them that they'll be safe going to the polls.

Next, make a bery big to do about the fact that that makes them their own fully legitmate country and offer to do what their government wants with regards to our being there. In other words, if they want us to leave, we will, on their schedule.

If their new government is worth anything, they won't of course, but the dynamic will have changed dramatically and we can slowly, but consistently withdraw troops.

This seems so obvious, I have to believe it's got huge holes in it.

If anything less than a stable government protected by a competent, well-led, well-equipped Iraqi army numbering at least 250,000 (?) is what it will take to avoid the blowback, then US forces will have to be there for quite a while, based on how many fully-trained Iraqi soldiers they've managed to turn out in the last 2 years.

And even then, I don't see how you can guarantee things won't fall apart the minute we do leave: over a disagreement about Kurdish autonomy, or due to sectarian revolts, or wholesale assassination of the we-thought-it-was-stable government, or perhaps some opportunistic adventuring by Iran. (Turkey, not so likely; Turkey wants to be part of Europe's community and economy, and destabilizing Iraq will put a big ol' kibosh on that.)

Which brings up the issue of whether those so-far-theoretical "fully-trained Iraqi soldiers" will be trained to defend the country from external attacks, or only to defend it from insurgents. Which in turn brings up the issue of how many Iraqi soldiers does it take to do both, whether whatever kind of command structure they'll have will be able to do both, and what kind of equipment we'll leave them to do both with.

The nice thing about actually considering what it would take to win in Iraq is that one can actually see some meaningful, real-world metrics. The downside is, the more clearly we see the metrics, the more protracted and obdurate the operation becomes - and, yes, the more impossible under the current leadership.

What about McCain as the vp/replacement? I would think he'd be the natural pick for the Republican Adults Coalition, the people who would be making the threats. Are there enough of them, though?

I'd appreciate understanding better how Edward defines and prioritizes victory in Iraq.

That's fair.

I've been asking others the same question across the blogosphere, hoping to work through the best ideas, given that the administration's definition is unclear.

Here's what I think.

I'm confused, because so far as I can see, the question you then answered was "what should we now do in Iraq?"

How that answers the question asked, I have no idea. Is that just me?

(On the flip side, while it's completely reasonable that any interlocuter be asked to state their own working definition of "victory," I don't understand the great puzzlement expressed by many as to what might constitute it; while one can easily define a range from optimal to minimal, what's unclear or difficult about doing so? Optimal, and unrealistic, would be complete peace, full democracy and civil and human writes, with communal harmony, as well as firm cooperation with the United States. Minimal would be that most of the Iraqi people are sufficiently better off as measured by some mixed formula of standards rating human rights, safety, and civil rights as to somehow justify and balance the death, destruction, and suffering, that served to get the Iraqis to that place. Realistic optimism would be something a bit above minimal. Realistic pessimism would be settling for the minimal, but knowing that it might not be possible and may not happen. True pessimism, which is a popular anti-war position, is that the minimal is in no way possible, so let's cut our losses, and be done with it. There ya go.)

"Like Gary, I'd appreciate understanding better how Edward defines and prioritizes victory in Iraq."

Since Edward hasn't answered this yet (as I write; perhaps our posts will cross), I'll give a quick off-the-top-of-my-head draft of a possible answer of my own.

Victory, even minimally, as I defined above, would be good. Good for the Iraqi people, good for America, and good for the world. It's desirable.

Any of those awful outcomes I mentioned here -- "a festering ongoing hellish slaughterground of a battlefield for decades to come, or an abandoned land of terrorist camps, or an Iranian fiefdom, or the renewed state of a new tyrannical nuclear-missile-wielding strongman, or what-have-you" -- would be horrible, terrible, dreadful, pick your adjective. It would be pretty much only the Iraqi people who would suffer, of course, although the neighboring countries would also suffer an effect, and there'd be some ripple effects in the world we need not get into at the moment. And we, the Americans, would bear the terrible responsibility for having done this horrific thing to the Iraqi people, of course.

And nobody wants that, to put it mildly, of course.

But, as priorities go, here's how I see it: victory in the Korean War was desirable, but not existentially necessary to the survival of the United States or the rest of the West, or the rest of our Asian allies. Same for Vietnam.

And the same for Iraq in the Middle East. Failure: very bad. Success: good. Is it an existential necessity? Not even remotely close. Not even an argument. Not even a question.

Success in the 1861-65 War: that was necessary.

Success in WWII was close to necessary, although still really a couple of steps down the chain of events would have been necessary to make it truly immediately necessary for the survival of the United States; but it was a pretty predictable and obvious set of almost inevitable developments, so that was at least close to being "necessary."

So, there we go. Edward, your defense of victory in Iraq being "necessary" as opposed to "highly desirable"?

Very interesting discussion.

As a non-american who pays close attention to american politics, I must say that I do not understand the "McCain as moderate-adult" opinion so many moderates seem to have. He appears to be a bit of a nut as far as I can tell. In any event, his lapdog behaviour to Bush is difficult to excuse if he is to be the great compramise.

Edward, thank you for your reply. I absolutely agree that we must guarantee as much safety for the Dec. 15th elections as possible. What happens afterwards will be much more murky. Whoever gets into office will likely try to have the best of all options (like all politicians), sending mixed messages about the desirable US troop levels. I can easily imagine even a comparatively honest Iraqi politician suggesting to constituents and pressure groups (like the guys threatening to kidnap his daughter) that he'll press the Americans to leave, while telling the Americans that he needs more security. I doubt that the government elected on Dec. 15th will clarify our dilemma much.

*

CaseyL wrote If anything less than a stable government protected by a competent, well-led, well-equipped Iraqi army numbering at least 250,000 (?) is what it will take to avoid the blowback, then US forces will have to be there for quite a while, based on how many fully-trained Iraqi soldiers they've managed to turn out in the last 2 years.

I'm not sure we can really hope to avoid blowback; what the military (either the US or Iraqi) can hope to do is minimize it, disrupt organizations, confiscate as many weapons as possible, patrol borders. I suspect that there will be some degree of blowback anyways.

Will Turkey be dissuaded from South-Eastern opportunism by the carrot from the West? I hope you're right. The EU is nervous and shaky right now, though, and even before the French riots there were many who opposed Turkey's entry into the union on cultural, economic, and human rights grounds. Let's hope that carrot stays on the table; Kurdish Iraq is oil-rich.

*

John Miller: I noticed the flip-side of that %64, too, and was a bit shocked. But maybe not a full %36 think it's unwinnable: "I don't know" might have been an option. I hope.

Gary wrote: and there'd be some ripple effects in the world we need not get into at the moment.

I think that those might be pretty important to a lot of the people making the "no end but victory" argument. Not necessarily the lot posting over at noendetc. dot whatever: many reasonable people are worried about the global consequences of a possible meltdown in the dead-center of the mideast.

And then, rightly or wrongly, one of the lessons of 9-11 (God, how I hate that much-abused phrase) is that when the US decided it could simply ignore Afghanistan when the country was no longer convenient, not only did bad things happen to the people there, those bad things had a way of drawing worse ones to them. That's put simplistically, for that I apologize, but it's late. Obviously, the opposite of "disengagement and indifference" is not "occupy with 250,000 troops," but I do think that a lot of the people responsible for making decisions in our country are very worried about ripple effects. And that's before I even start to talk about oil.

*

I've nattered on too long as it is, but I want to say again to anyone for whom it is not clear that I lean more towards Murtha's position than not. (Can anyone clarify the difference between "redeployment"--which I would understand as a large-scale re-organization of where troops are located--and "withdrawal"--which I would understand as a general retreat?) I do think that the US has gone too far into the superpower zone to indulge in isolationist fantasies.

We will experience blowback from our Iraqi adventure: it's already happening in the diplomatic and economic spheres, and it may come some day in the form of more terrorism here. Would staying in Iraq lessen the blow? I doubt it would, much, but I don't really know.

I do know that if we continue to mistreat detainees, we'll (continue to) make enemies of people we hoped were our friends. If, as I suspect is already happening, the different factions in Iraq begin to mistreat each other, then it might be better if we were not helping them to do so.

But our country invaded, idiots that we are, and we can't withdraw, make nice, and pretend it didn't happen. Maybe we should cut our losses, slink away, and hope for the best, while fearing the probable: I don't know.

On a moral level, either we should succeed in establishing a democracy in Iraq or we should hang Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to save our own. Everything in between is, of course, the gray politics of reality.

As a non-american who pays close attention to american politics, I must say that I do not understand the "McCain as moderate-adult" opinion so many moderates seem to have. He appears to be a bit of a nut as far as I can tell. In any event, his lapdog behaviour to Bush is difficult to excuse if he is to be the great compramise.

I think people wistfully remember the McCain pre-2000. Since then, your perception is spot on.

I talked to my father for a long time this afternoon about politics. I'd always pegged him as the prototypical McCain voter: fiscal conservative, social libertarian, worried about jerrymandering, scornful of advertising, tends to vote Republican, although in 2004, he voted Libertarian.

So. In this afternoon's conversation, he reminded me of his fears, in early 2004, that if the Democrats inherited the Iraq war mess and the fiscal mess, they'd open the door for a truly awful right-wing demogogue. (He's a scientist and a Canadian by birth, and his mother was an outspoken nurse practitioner who patched up not a few back-alley abortions.) On the phone he took some comfort in the fact that Bush was such an awful speaker that he hadn't managed to fill the nightmare role. And then: "I've got some worries about that McCain guy."

As do I. Anyone who campaigned for Bush in 2004 knew exactly what he was. McCain is much more mediagenic than anyone in Bush's administration could ever hope to be. McCain seems to privilege foreign conflicts in his talks, but he's socially conservative, as far as I can tell. And the man can talk. McCain could do more damage, while speaking finer words, than Bush could dream of.

The will to rape boys and girls in the name of liberty and democracy is pretty "willing".

I saw [name deleted] fucking a kid, his age would be about 15 - 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard the screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn't covered and I saw [name deleted] who was wearing the military uniform putting his dick in the little kid's ass. I couldn't see the face of the kid because his face wasn't in front of the door. And the female soldier was taking pictures. [name deleted], I think he is [deleted] because of his accent, and he was not skinny or short, and he acted like a homosexual (gay). And that was in cell #23 as best as I remember.

From:
Lenin's Tomb

McCain still has symbolic value, even for liberals, that he gets mostly for not being George W. Bush, and specifically for having not been George W. Bush during the 2000 primary campaign (when many Democrats crossed over to Republican primaries just to vote for McCain since they hated Bush so much). The symbolic value seems to overwhelm the reality of the man.

I don't know if he's quite the slick far-right crypto-demagogue that Jackmormon worries he is; his temper occasionally gets the better of him. But I think a lot of moderates and even liberals consider him a sympathetic figure without much justification and don't really remember why they feel that way. He's clearly a conservative Republican unafraid of pandering to the religious right. Democrats would not like a McCain administration at all, though he might well be more competent than Bush.

As for Edward's Bush/Cheney resignation scenario, while I think it's fantastically unlikely, it might be a good strategy for prominent Democrats to start calling for it. They surely wouldn't like a Rice administration either (though it would probably be better than what we've got), but they probably won't get one anyway. Meanwhile, the advocacy would be a way of evoking echoes of Nixon without the luxury of being able to start impeachment proceedings.

Agree that Edward's scenario is monstrously unlikely. For now.

But the question that hasn't been addressed by any of the Republicans on the site is: regardless of whether you think it's likely or not, do you think this is a good idea? Would you support it?

If a few thousand or a few million registered Republicans wrote to their senators and representatives and president supporting Edward's idea, then what is "likely" or "unlikely" could change in a hurry.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad