« Conrad Black Convicted of Fraud | Main | New Front in Iraq: US Troops vs. Iraqi Police »

Sen. Boxer Says Impeachment on the Table

Boxer.jpgThis came up yesterday (link leads to audio) when Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) appeared on a radio talk show:

Appearing on Ed Schultz's talk radio show Thursday, Sen. Barbara Boxer said impeachment of the President "should be on the table." The senator from California also says the Bush administration is the "closest we have ever come to a dictatorship."

She's not calling for impeachment -- yet, but she comes pretty close.

The Impeachment Drumbeat is continuing to get louder...

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.4/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.4/5 (5 votes cast)

Comments (7)


Title: "Sen, Boxer says impeachment is on the table."

From the interview, impeachment "should be on the table."

So, if the meat 'should' be on the table, that means it is on the table? It is no wonder people think you blog is a joke, you have severe reading comprehension problems.

I guess it all goes back to what your definition of is, is.

Lee Ward:

Listen to the audio -- she says it's on the table "because the Constitution doesn't allow us to take it off the table".

She also says at the very end "I don't think it should be taken off the table."

If she says "it can't be taken off the table" - and "I don't think it should be taken off the table"... that's close enough to "on the table" for me.

But what's your point? I also said:

She's not calling for impeachment -- yet, but she comes pretty close.

I don't think we're quibbling over the definition of "is" - it's more a question of what it means to be "on the table".

As far as the American people are concerned (check out the polls at the end of the "Impeachment Drumbeat" link in the post) the impeachment of the President of the United States is very much a matter that is "on the table." I believe Sen Barbara Boxer agrees, and said as much in that interview.


Lets see if I can understand this:

When Bush or other admin officials say military action "is on the table" in referencing Iran's nuclear intentions he's excoriated as a "war monger."

Yet when Boxer says impeachment is "on the table" she's celebrated.

Whatever. BTW, wonder what crimes were committed that would warrant impeachment, Boxer doesn't say.

Care to enlighten us Lee "The Thief" Ward?


It's not in the Dem's interest to give Bush any kind of martyr cred. The Bush administration is doing the equivalent of lying babble: huhminuh,huhminuh. The Dems don't want to interrupt him (for politics' sake). For the nation's sake they should, but there are other agendas in play than partisan showmanship in an off-year. Both parties get their money from the same entrenched interests. And both party leaderships are on the Iran Card bandwagon. (Murtha, too.) Bush gives the Dems an excuse to still be within striking distance of Iran in 09.

Remember, "Nobody" wants a revolution here. Things might get too unpredictable, The strings might break during the marionette show.

Lee Ward:

Sorry, I've been out walking - Doh!

...make that wagging the dog.

Now, if I can only get this book to be "on the table" but not actually "on" the table -- and not "off the table," of course... then I will be King.

The Bush Administration is downright awful, but it's pretty late in the game to be considering this right now. That train seems to have long since left the station. Years ago would have been the right time to bring this up.

Unless both Bush and Cheney were removed from office then little good would really be achieved. But with a new Republican standing president, then the GOP chances would look better for 2008, which is not a good thing either for the 2008 Democratic hopes of retaking the white House.


It's clear beyond measure at this point that the Bush presidency is, at best, an utter failure and, at worst, a serious threat to not only our system of government, but to world stability as well. How even the most rabid partisans can still excuse and encourage his continuing assault on the Constitution and the utter contempt in which he holds everyone outside his small group of loyalists is beyond belief.

It does seem that public support for impeachment is growing, but it would be long and difficult. The Bush/Rove/Cheney axis of evil has packed the Justice Dept well in anticipation of any and all legal challenges and, unfortunately, Congress just doesn't seem to have the collective stomach for it at this point. Maybe that's why their approval rating is so low. The other, and larger, downside is that impeachment would shift even more attention away from all of the critical election issues Iraq, healthcare, energy, etc.

I'd love to see them gone yesterday, but I think there might be negatives than positives in proceeding with impeachment. Congress needs to grow some serious cojones, and quickly. They need to start cranking up the pressure against his ruinous policies and Constitutional abuses. Let him sit isolated in his big white house and feel the sting of realization that it is the will of the people, not one man, that governs this country.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.