It's been mentioned that a drawback to impeachment is that removing Bush would elevate Cheney into the presidency. One solution that is in the works is the impeachment of Cheney. Not a perfect solution but better than inaction.

As I analyze this dilemma, he constitutional problem lies with the 12th amendment and its shortsighted attempt to rectify the problem of an even vote occurring in the house of representatives. As it's been pointed out elsewhere in the comments to this topic, the constitutional requirements and procedures for impeachment are overly ambiguous. Short of revoking the 12th amendment and thereby challenging the philosophy of those who argue for original intent, does it not follow that since the acceptance of the 12th amendment, impeachment requires the removal of both the president and the vice presidents since the vice president post is no longer the second in receiving popular votes?

I'd like somebody with more experience in this than I. The twelfth amendment is one that seldom gets much attention and yet has affected every political race and the overall dynamic of our election process and politiciking.

I'm still not quite certain what this documentary attempts to do. This review creates the impression, perhaps to the delight of the producers and the HBO executives, that the documentary has something for everybody. I agree that it's better to record interviews of witnesses to history before they die, but doesn't that admonition apply equally to all historical events?

Will this documentary change any hardfelt opinions as the director seems to imply? Will Tancredo or Cheney undergo a seachange with regards to obliterating Mecca or Tehran?

I'm especially still puzzled though as to what renders the use of A-bombs to end the war against Japan any more immoral than the firebombing of other Japanese civilian populations, which even MacNamara asserts explicitly as warcrimes? Has anybody ever suggested that the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was a warcrime?

And if the distinction is radiation and its aftereffects, then why does the US continue to use spent uranium munitions seemingly without the same level of moral dilemma?

I hope that the documentary is able to tackle some of these issues, but my concern is that merely showing new images of suffering Japanese will do little more than to bolster the myth still held by some in Japanese society that they were the victims of the war.

All warfare is an immoral act. The tools that we use to wage war are merely what we have on hand and devised with our immeasurable capacity for inhumanity.

It seems another postgraduate has written a history book in order to apply the latest literary theory to explain medicine. The reviewer describes a fully footnoted and erudite collection of quotations, which are used to highlight so many metaphors, linguistic arcana, and symbols. This book might be a fascinating read for people who aren't aware of just how much further Arabic medicine had advanced European prior to the 15th century yet beyond that it seems nothing more than a compilation of trivia and "really cool facts about stuff I didn't know".

The simpler and more useful explanation is that medicine shifted from inductive to deductive, scientific reasoning along with all the other sciences after the discovery of the new world challenged all the received wisdom from classical sources. The key was to stop relying on the authority of ancient authors and afterwards to start making new observations and applying fresh hypotheses. The absence such a shock to the system held back medicine and other areas in Arabic and Chinese scientific inquiry. One further can speculate why medicine was so slow to adapt to new thinking. Church doctrines? The inherent conservative nature of doctors? The book doesn't seem to get into those more challenging questions. Instead the author seems to prefer to titillate the readership with stories about the significance of puke and snot today and in the past. This is at best history lite.

Those who cannot think, report. This account about the petty rivalries and their rationalization for cheating amongst future MSM talkingheads says more about why the fourth estate is disdained than the existence of Fox News. Is ethics an elective in 'blogger school today?

Are these not the same strategies and monied interests that campaigned against double amputee, Tammy Duckworth, when she ran for a house seat on a platform of withdrawal? Maybe some cannonfodder gimps simply know better than others.

If Fleischer is now out of his hole, I would like to see talkingheads in the MSM nail him on his outrageous statements while WH press secretary. Sadly from what I've seen, they are allowing him all the due respect of a former WH official and letting him spin freely.

Gee, as far as that goes, what does Coulter have to say about using victims of terrorism and their families for political gain? Did she recently take his place back in the hole?