Constructive gadfly
Published on March 23, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics

Personally, I believe there is highly probable cause to impeach both Bush and Cheney, as is a very slim majority in agreement. It would generate so much controversy that the nation would lose sight — more than it does now — of the exigencies of the greater good. There is little doubt that the dynamic duo would be found guilty of charges that they deceived the people in believing Saddam was connected to the 9/11 tragedy, that he possessed WMD of so pressing a matter that we should not wait for the “mushroom cloud” hovering what was left of the nation’s Capitol, that they authorized unwarranted spying on citizens, illegal detention and torture of captives. Yet the people, the Congress and the Press are also impeachable for having witlessly allowed such a scenario to snowball. We cannot hide behind the Nuremberg cry that we are not responsible for acquiescing to such gestalt shortcomings in the greatest democratic nation in history.

Though I myself have accused the Democratic Party of being unpardonable wimps, in this scenario it is wise to cool it, rather than rush into a scenario that would jeopardize victory in the elections of ‘06 and ‘08. Having lived through the hysteria of two impeachments has made me doubt the sagacity of a long, melodramatic trial proving “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Were it not for the sinuous rationale of clever lawyers and inevitably opposing senators, and were it not for the inevitable partisan division among the people — I trust the Founding Fathers did not envision — that such action would cause, perhaps it would be possible to achieve justice and the rule of law. Though Feingold had the right idea to settle for Censure with the hope that Bush in the future take careful aim rather than shooting from the hip, the senator nonetheless was crucified — I shudder at the thought of moving toward impeachment.

 

Copyright © 2006 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: March 23, 2006.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

 


Comments
on Mar 23, 2006
The problem I have with the perceived obviousness of the crimes listed here is that nothing is being done about it. Clinton wasn't much more than lecherous, and somehow they found ways to deal with him legally with a 60% approval rating. No one, at any level of state or federal government could be making an effort now?

I find it hard to believe that a President with a 40% and below approval rating couldn't be dealt with at least as harshly IF those crimes were as obvious in nature as you portray them. I think the reason that impeachment is not advisable, and would be destructive to our nation, is that you can't pick a dozen legal experts at random that would agree that they were all actual crimes.

I think if the Dems win a majority they will make an effort to do this. The cost will make the cost of impeaching Clinton look like lunch money, and nothing close to the truth of the situation will ever be known. People will walk away with it the same way they percieved Clinton, those who disliked him will make everything he did a crime, and those who approve of him will excuse everything he did.
on Mar 23, 2006

The reasons you list are the same old tired straw dog.  In an impeachment case, it would be obvious that the dog does not bark.  The truth is there are no grounds for impeachment other than a seething animosity by one side that most people call in the real world "sore losers".  That is the only thing goading them on.

But the attempt to impeach him is what you are concerned with, and for good reason.  Should the democrats keep up the mantra, they will not only lose the center, but galvanize the right and be forever relegated to minority status. Or at least for another 20 years.

on Mar 23, 2006
Bush said it best, "if you {democrats} think I did something illegal with the wire taps take it to the voters this November" just tell the folks you do not approve of wiretapping suspected terrorist and would not do it yourself" Oddly enough no Democrats took him up on the offer. Over 65% of Americans polled think wire tapping terrorist is a good idea and Bush should continue doing it.
on Mar 23, 2006
Oddly enough no Democrats took him up on the offer.
like I said they're wimps, but wisw and shrewd not to take the bait.

the same old tired straw dog.
such as at Abu Garaib?

People will walk away with it the same way they percieved Clinton, those who disliked him will make everything he did a crime, and those who approve of him will excuse everything he did.
Right and as with Nixon.
on Mar 23, 2006
Eh, I don't think either Bush or Clinton could hold a candle to Nixon in terms of talent, for legal political success and otherwise.
on Mar 23, 2006
5 by BakerStreet
Thursday, March 23, 2006


Eh, I don't think either Bush or Clinton could hold a candle to Nixon in terms of talent, for legal political success and otherwise.


exactly, nixon made two mistakes, he got caught and then he lied.
on Mar 23, 2006
exactly, nixon made two mistakes, he got caught and then he lied.


I think you missed Baker's point. Nixon came out smelling like a rose as world statesman and was a dutiful consultant to ensuing presidents.
on Mar 24, 2006

I don't see any evidence that Bush did anything illegal.

I certainly never thought that Iraq was connected to 9/11.

If there's some specific crime, name it.

on Mar 25, 2006
I don't see any evidence that Bush did anything illegal.
Justifiable since there really is no political stomach to investigate.

I certainly never thought that Iraq was connected to 9/11.
Obviously, you are too intelligent for that, but I'm sure you're aware that many others believed it to be so such as from Cheney's private knowledge that Al Qaeda met officials in Iraq during Saddam's time.

If there's some specific crime, name it.
Indeed, it would be difficult to prove there was wilful deception to go to war or that wiretapping without a warrant in time of war is a crime, or the unseemly torture practices were okayed by Bush. That's the reason the thrust of my article is against the messy business of impeachment--we have enough division without adding to it.
btw, thanks for the insightful
on Mar 25, 2006

the same old tired straw dog.
such as at Abu Garaib?

Exactly.  Now make the case for an impeachable offense at Abu Graib.  You cant.

on Mar 25, 2006
I agree. Impeachment would not succeed. What needs to happen is to have at least one house of Congress shift in November 2006 and stop Bush and the GOP from destroying this country. In that way our policies will become more centrist and reflect the will of the majority not of the far right.
on Mar 26, 2006
In that way our policies will become more centrist and reflect the will of the majority not of the far right.
I wouldn't be too happy with centrist, how about not too much to the left of a Hillary or Gore?