 |
Why I’m Against Impeaching President Bush |
 |
Yes, I am Liberal. In fact, I’m pretty Liberal by most standards. I’m not too far left to be considered “weird,†yet not too moderate to be considered “Clinton.â€Â
But I, yes me, am against impeaching President Bush. Here’s why:
First, because most of the charges people have suggested Congress bring against the President would be difficult to prove. And second, because it is to the Democrats’ political advantage to keep Bush around.
THE CHARGES
1. When it comes to the Iraq War, the President truly does decide what is credible and what is not credible. Saying that he “intentionally†lied to Congress about the reasons for going to War in the first place would be a losing battle, because the President could easily shift the blame to the CIA and other Intelligence Agencies that gave him their “best information possible†at the time he asked for it. You can’t prove he lied about it on purpose. There are a multitude of theories concerning who knew what when, and many of those are plausible and logically sound - but from a legal standpoint they really have no merit.
2. When it comes to the CIA leak scandal, I think the President’s lawyers would be able to show that the President had nothing to do with it and that the whole scandal involved the Vice President’s office exclusively. This is also a losing battle.
3. As for the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys for what has been shown to be purely political reasons, much of the evidence consists of emails exchanged between the President’s staffers and the Justice Department. The President has total deniability. He can simply fire the staffers and move on.
These are just three examples of why what many on the Left deem impeachable offenses are in fact charges that would be very difficult to prove. But here’s why he really shouldn’t be impeached:
THE POLITICAL ADVANTAGE OF GOOD VS. EVIL
This President, and everyone who truly, TRULY, believed in him should suffer through the next couple of months and it should plague them through the next election in 2008. When President Bush’s time expires in office he will, by almost all standards, be deemed a complete failure as a leader and as an executive officer. Bush won’t be received amongst Kings and Queens as some sort of good-will ambassador, he won’t raise money for relief efforts, and he won’t be taken seriously. Let’s allow him his final months of office so we can forget about him as a President. But then let’s use him as the primary example, and I use the term ‘primary’ for actual primary votes for Democrats in Iowa, for what we don’t want when we elect a new leader for our nation.
I once wrote a paper in which I stated that in order for there to be an idea of a “Jesus Christ,” there had to be an antithesis (the Christianized Satan). My argument about Bush works along the same lines. In order for us to see true salvation for the future, we must realize what true sadness we’ve seen in the past.
Bush proclaimed himself the “Uniter: not a Divider.†Are you kidding me? America is more Polarized than ever - but we can come together against this man. So keep him in office, I say, and work against him for the common goal! As former President Woodrow Wilson once said (I’m greatly paraphrasing on this but I’m still gonna quote it), “There is no greater religion than working for the common good.†Let us all learn from the mistakes of the past 8 years.
Why shatter potential unity? If Democrats attempt to pursue impeaching President Bush on charges that involve any sort of in-depth investigation, they’re making a mistake. As we learned from the Lewinsky Scandal, that type of aggression truly does embolden the other side. Not that getting “relations†from a clerk on the one hand and sending 18-year-olds off to die so investors can make a lot of money when they go public on the other hand are equal…but I take no chances.
Let President Bush complete his term in office. And then, collectively as Americans, we can forget about him forever.
Maybe he’ll become a catch-phrase. Here’s an example: If I tell my friend Mike I won’t vomit on him and then I do it and blame it on Dee Dee then one could say I “Pulled a Dubya!â€Â. Just an idea.
Also, why persecute someone when they’re already SO FAR down amongst Americans? This is the time to pass crucial legislation with bi-partisan support, not the time to get into constitutional arguments as to what “executive privilege†really means. That’s what 200 level Poli-Sci courses are for, not Senate Hearings for fuck’s sake.
Use the President’s continued weakness as an advantage politically. Say to Senator so-and-so, “Hey, you’re facing a tough battle because your state hates Bush…we can make it easier on you if you help us end the War in Congress and become a spokesperson against Bush.†If you really want to win, you don’t continue to make Democrats hate the President, you make Republicans hate him even more.
Sure, Gonzalez is probably gonna go…he’ll be fired before anything. Maybe VP Cheney too. But leave the President in his place. He wanted to be the Decider…let America decide his fate by not giving him the time of day once he leaves office.
So what I’m basically saying to Democrats is this: Avoid a witch hunt that on a PR level could backfire, like Lewinsky, even if it does have more merit (blow jobs << Death of Troops…I haven’t used a mathematical equation in quite some time…somewhere my dad is smiling) and go for the big picture. Focus on destroying American belief in the Republican Party during your convention…in fucking Denver…by being ABLE TO POINT at President Bush. Focus on gains in the so-called Red States like Montana (2 Dem Senators and a Dem Governor…thank you very much) and possible gains in other Western non-coastal states. President Bush is the lightning rod for a movement waiting to be born. Keep him around! Use him to your advantage! Expand your majority by showing the difference between you and him! You know…good vs evil.
Do whatever it takes. President Bush is the reason for all that is bad…use that as an argument, for it will work if you want it to. What I’m saying is that he provides the basis for an argument, he provides a basis for anger…and anger provides the basis for change. As Brother Malcolm once said:
“Usually when people are sad, they don’t do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.â€Â
Some may disagree with me and want President Bush gone…I view him as the catalyst for a longstanding movement of progressive ideas against a now defunct neo-conservative agenda. Sometimes it takes someone so bad to realize the good that people can really do, and sometimes it takes a Satan (overall badness) just to make us realize that there actually might be a Christ (something good maybe?)…either way, in order to truly believe, you must not ignore the opposite. True belief does not require the opposite, it requires faith in something more…something better…something greater.
Then again, John Lennon once said, “I don’t believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.†After all, he was the Walrus.
(Here’s another clue for you all…the Walrus was Paul.)
I don’t feel that President Bush is truly a bad person. As a matter of fact, many of my friends know him on a semi-personal level and they reported back to me that he’s actually a very likable person. I don’t disagree. I’d grab a beer with President Bush. Shit, I’d grab a beer with any President, but I feel I’d have a decent time with the current President. I feel he is down to earth. I feel he’s in over his head. He reminds me of a lot of people I met in college.
However, my feeling that the current President is “in over his head†or “out-weighed†is simply not enough for me to feel that he’s impeachable. I fear the man, or woman, that knows they’re making a mistake much more than the person who doesn’t know there’s a mistake to be made. President Bush is a pawn, sadly, for an agenda that is truly on its way out (hence the discussion of his impeachment and the loss of important seats in 2006). I say keep him there as a lesson for future ideas and for future idealism…for future candidates and for future consultants.
Besides, this is the time of year to gain fundraising capital for future candidates, and what better “red-meat†for liberals to throw out at their $5,000 a plate dinner than “This is what Bush and Cheney did this week.” Keep it going. Keep the red meat. Keep the anger.
Regardless of what Senator Clinton and Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards do in the coming months we can always count on one thing: President Bush will do something stupid. Let’s use his presidency to our advantage…and hopefully it will be the last time we have to that. It worked in 2006, and it will again in 2008. Let’s just hope we nominate someone that we can stand…stand just a lil bit I guess.
Really I think there are strong arguments both ways - I think if the Dems take either path, impeachment or non-impeachment, and do it with class, they can come out looking pretty good. Ending the war before the end of Bush’s term would be the biggest accomplishment they could pull off in my eyes.
Also, nobody seems to talk about what would happen if Bush was actually removed from office. Do we really want President Cheney? Maybe we should leave Bush like you say and just go after Cheney from the start - same effect, same circus, but maybe not quite as bloody of a process.
• If we impeach Bush, we’ll get President Cheney!
The most recent impeachment resolution introduced by McKinney included Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Although, even if we only initially pursue Bush, initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.
In addition, no matter who we get to replace Bush, we’ll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.
• Promoting impeachment will seem too “extreme.â€Â
Demanding that crimes be investigated is NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn’t rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for. Nixon’s impeachment, however, was bipartisan.
• We should wait to impeach…
Wait to impeach? We’ve waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial, just like an indictment. Our congress people didn’t take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution. Besides which, our troops, Iraqi civilians, and our own civil liberties are all waiting for this.
• Before we impeach, we should get some legislation passed…
And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of “Commander in Chief” at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get ANYTHING accomplished without first impeaching Bush? Some people discuss the power of the purse, but do you really believe Bush will stop using the nation’s credit card because Congress passes a law?
If your tire blows while you’re driving, do you stop to fix it? Or do you continue driving on your rim because to stop would take too much time?
• It hurts the democracy to go through a presidential impeachment. And Bush is a lame duck anyway.
Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.
Sometimes reprimanding a child (president) doesn’t make the family (Washington) a happy place. But you still have to do it so the child and his siblings (future presidents) learn about accountability. Impeachment is horribly UNDERUSED, which is part of why there’s so much corruption at the top. Politicians must learn to fear it. People think things are better because we improved the make-up of our law-making body, Congress. But Bush is BREAKING LAWS. So, it doesn’t matter how many laws Congress passes if they don’t serve their OVERSIGHT duties as well by impeaching. They swore to defend the Constitution. What are laws without enforcement?
Besides, Bush can still do a lot of damage. Our troops, Iran, and our Supreme Court are all endangered so long as he remains in office. Waiting until Bush is out of office will leave us complicit in any further crimes he commits. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the death toll from a “tactical” nuclear weapon of the kind Bush is contemplating using in Iran would be at minimum 3 million men, women, and children. The path of death would stretch across country boundaries into India.
Perhaps worst of all, we set a terrible precedent by allowing Bush to stay in office after he’s broken so many laws. Impeachment will stop future presidents from using Bush’s actions as justification for even more lawbreaking and erosion of civil liberties.
• I’m a Democrat/Republican. If we support impeachment it will lower the chances of my party winning in 2008.
So, your party would rather win elections than do what’s right for the country? I hope you’re wrong. I also hope the public is willing to throw additional support to any party that holds our elected officials accountable for their actions. This has been historically true with every single impeachment effort launched. And this impeachment effort would begin with majority support (unlike most past impeachments including Nixon).
• Impeachment will never happen. The Republicans will block it.
Well, all we need is a majority of support in the House. And 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove Bush from office will happen once the evidence gets aired on the floor of the House, and subsequently the national media outlets. The political pressure will become too great.
Today’s impossibility is tomorrow’s reality. Republican Congress members will realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009 but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush’s poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they’ll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It’s already starting to happen. While many Members of Congress have behaved unethically in the last few years, it’s important to understand that this is related to their warped view of what’s in their self-interest. Let’s wake them up to their true self-interest (impeaching the president), by showing them our support for impeachment.
And even if we only impeach, and the Senate fails to do their duty and remove him from office, it will only implicate the Senators who fail to do their sworn Constitutional duty.
• But Speaker of the House Pelosi said that Impeachment was “off the table.”
Pelosi most likely said this to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment. What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.
• But the public doesn’t support impeachment.
Newsalert: Newsweek’s recent poll shows 51% support for Impeachment. Not to mention that support for Bush’s impeachment is more than it was before Nixon’s investigation.
• You’re just angry at what happened to Clinton
Impeachment is a nonpartisan issue. It’s not about Clinton, Lincoln, or any other president. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered a waste of time because they were pursued for things that didn’t rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the Impeachment tool was intended for. The argument that we can’t impeach Bush because there are previous presidents who also did bad things is the same as the argument you might hear from your child that you shouldn’t punish him because the neighbor’s kid did the same thing and didn’t get punished. We don’t want a presidential rush to the lowest common denominator. We have a duty to hold THIS president to the Constitution.
• If we don’t support our president, we aid the terrorists.
We support terrorism when we fail to deal with its root causes (poverty, lack of education, support of dictatorships, etc.). We also support it by enabling a president who creates breeding grounds for terrorists  like Iraq has now become, thanks to our invasion and occupation.
Middle Eastern countries are upset with the oppressive international policies of the past and current administration. We might develop more healthy relationships with these countries if we appeared to learn from our mistakes by impeaching a president who has been so instrumental in that oppression.
• Impeachment is the wrong approach. Our government is tyrannical, and needs to be violently overthrown through a popular revolution.
What makes you think that if our government fell today, the U.S. population would replace it with something better? Violent revolutions are bloody business, and there’s absolutely no guarantee that even with the best of intentions the resulting new government would be an improvement over the current one. Indeed, it could be much worse. This is because revolution only makes sense once the people understand the problem. Thanks to a complicit media, most people don’t have the information they need to fully understand what’s currently happening in the U.S., so before we can create positive change, we must help them to understand the situation we’re in. We don’t do that by pushing them away with what appears to be extremism. We must use skillful means to reveal the tyranny of this administration (and government in general). We can do this by making reasonable demands (for instance, that suspicious activities become subject to investigation). Each time we’re denied, more and more people will see the injustice (especially when we take to the streets each time!). Slowly we’ll get enough people on board to create the changes we need, whether our goal is gradual repair of the system or revolution. But either way, the path is the same: First, we try to change the system. When the system shows itself to be tyrannical and unwilling to change, the people will move closer to revolution. If instead, the system allows the demanded changes, then we’ve won a victory  and maybe the theory that the system is hopelessly tyrannical is flawed. The real point is that political change is a process, and we need to have the resolve to see it through. Demanding immediate perfection is unrealistic and counterproductive, and too easily turns into a cop-out for failing to do the hard work of creating meaningful change.
Side note:
Some Democratic Members of Congress have indicated that they’re not currently pursuing Bush’s impeachment. While this is upsetting, they percieve it to be in their (and the Democratic Party’s) political best interest, at least until the political pressure builds. There are other reasons they’re waiting as well, and one of those things is us. They (as well as Republican members) need us to legitimize their support for the process. Having millions of ImpeachForPeace.org’s “Do-It-Yourself Impeachment” arrive at their door is one powerful tool toward making that happen.
Jodin -
Well spoken, though clearly your comment is a ready-made form that I assume you’re posting elsewhere as well. There are strong arguments in favor of impeaching (and convicting) Bush; the strongest to me is the one you point out about keeping our democracy strong by demonstrating that our checks on power still have teeth. I think a lot of us here at The Seminal (at least me and Jake) are concerned about what the effects of impeachment would be - in other words, what it might make us lose sight of. I want the Iraq War over above all, and I want the troops home. If Bush can catch some accountability in that process, great. But I want to make sure that whatever the Democrats do, they’re sticking to the High Road, and keeping their eyes on the prize - a better America.