Debatable Question #1: Should Dubya Be Impeached?
Since being the worst president ever does not directly translate to a "high crime or misdeameanor", I think we first need to decide which transgression we would impeach him for. I think going to Iraq would not count. Yes he mislead the public and had an obvious neoconservative ulterior motive from the minute after September 11th happened, but I'm not sure this would be enough. It is easy to forget that the pre-invasion argument was not whether
or not Saddam had WMDs, but how we should handle the fact that he did. If Bush had been forthcoming with intelligence the public might have questioned this more, but Saddam was acting very guilty. Colin Powell's Uranium speech might have pushed the limits on misleading versus lying, but Saddam's bait and switch game with the inspector's had everyone pretty much convinced (wrongly) anyway.
Which leads us to the transgression most often cited for impeachment, the wire tapping. This was a direct violation of laws put into place after Nixon and an extension of this administration's attitude that they are above the law. I would be totally up for impeaching Bush over this, but oddly, this is the lone thing he's done in his second term that is popular. Go figure. I'm not sure why this has
been so unquestioned by the general public. I had a first-hand experience of this in my classroom (Bush has made it really easy to connect The Bill of Rights to current events). In talking about aspects of the Patriot Act the class was, overall, freaked out and angry. But when I brought up the wiretapping, they collectively shrugged their shoulders.
So, as of right now, I do not think we should impeach Dubya. The main offence he'd be accused of would not be supported by most people, and forcing it down their throats could turn the whole affair into a bipartisan Clinton impeachment process that alienates the public. How about we follow Feingold's lead (Mr. 1 in the 99-1 Senate vote to pass the Patriot Act) and censure him? Not sure what that means, but sounds nice and humiliating.
*** Trivia question. Impeach comes from the middle english word empechen. What did empechen mean?
or not Saddam had WMDs, but how we should handle the fact that he did. If Bush had been forthcoming with intelligence the public might have questioned this more, but Saddam was acting very guilty. Colin Powell's Uranium speech might have pushed the limits on misleading versus lying, but Saddam's bait and switch game with the inspector's had everyone pretty much convinced (wrongly) anyway.Which leads us to the transgression most often cited for impeachment, the wire tapping. This was a direct violation of laws put into place after Nixon and an extension of this administration's attitude that they are above the law. I would be totally up for impeaching Bush over this, but oddly, this is the lone thing he's done in his second term that is popular. Go figure. I'm not sure why this has
been so unquestioned by the general public. I had a first-hand experience of this in my classroom (Bush has made it really easy to connect The Bill of Rights to current events). In talking about aspects of the Patriot Act the class was, overall, freaked out and angry. But when I brought up the wiretapping, they collectively shrugged their shoulders.So, as of right now, I do not think we should impeach Dubya. The main offence he'd be accused of would not be supported by most people, and forcing it down their throats could turn the whole affair into a bipartisan Clinton impeachment process that alienates the public. How about we follow Feingold's lead (Mr. 1 in the 99-1 Senate vote to pass the Patriot Act) and censure him? Not sure what that means, but sounds nice and humiliating.
*** Trivia question. Impeach comes from the middle english word empechen. What did empechen mean?
posted by chuckdaddy2000 at 8:58 am
2 Comments:
Aww, I wouldn't worry about George Bush's kid. He's completely unelectable.
Oh shit, wait...
How many years 'til Jenna?
Post a Comment
<< Home