So maybe I was wrong: Rethinking arguments against impeachment

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7353

So maybe I was wrong: Rethinking arguments against impeachment
by Jack Lessenberry | May 9 2007

I have been steadfastly against trying to impeach George W. Bush, even though he is clearly the worst president in the modern history of America.

These were my main reasons for feeling that way: 1) Politically, I saw impeachment as absolutely impossible to bring off. 2) As bad as Bush is, I don't want to see America turn into some kind of parody banana republic, in which the opposition party tries to impeach every president. 3) America knew what the Shrub was selling, and re-elected him, so we got what we deserve.

Plus, I felt that any effort to impeach the rascal would divert attention from the very real agenda of trying to stop his criminal war. And finally, what if you did manage to remove him? You'd get the puppet master himself, the sneering Darth Cheney, widely regarded to be the brains of the current Reich. Not only that, he would be eligible to run for re-election, and given the Democrats' penchant for political suicide, that's a risk I don't think anyone wants.

Yet I am beginning to think I was wrong.

snip//

Richard Nixon looks like a candidate for ACLU man of the year in comparison. Sorta makes bugging a bunch of loser politicians at the Watergate Hotel look pretty damn tame, doesn't it? Should Bush and Cheney both be impeached, removed from office, and sent off to Abu Ghraib?

Damn straight they should. Can that be done? Well, I still strongly doubt it. But I no longer doubt that citizens should try to call them to account.

kicked and recommended.

So many that want impeachment right now evidently believe that conviction by the Senate will magically happen. The thought seems to be, knowing what we know, how could all of those Republican senators fail to vote for conviction? That is like saying, believing what we believe and believe to be true, how is it that all of the Republicans in Congress do not simply become Democrats? Just because you want something to happen badly enough to happen does not mean it will happen. With impeachment, as with many things, timing is everything and the investigations and hearings will bring impeachment to a critical mass when the time is right along with at least the possibility of conviction. (I think if there is a real possibility of conviction, then Bush would resign). If impeachment is done it should be done right, not simply because you have the ability to do it like the Republicans did with Clinton.

That is assuming the election was accurate, and honestly reflected the votes tallied. We know that was not the case in Ohio and Florida, and there are many other areas where there were questionable votes certified.

In Ohio alone, it was enough to change the outcome of the election, was it not?

I do agree with article, but I'm not convinced that America got what it deserves. Most of us knew better, and voted for Al Gore and John Kerry.

because of the widespread complicity and many precedents (eg, Gulf of Tonkin).

I AM in favor of impeachment over practices that undercut our entire of government including partisan prosecutions, hirings, and firings, and the use of signing statements to repudiate the law.

what makes him think the United States isn't already "some kind of parody banana republic"?

A President Cheney is nothing to take lightly. Would any of us want him in control, having his finger on the button? Hell, he would be carrying the football himself.

Yes, the Law of Unintended Consequences merits some consideration. The order of impeachments is certainly as important as the timing when impeachment should occur. I believe that the time is coming for impeachment and it was not last January or today. This is a question that is worth considering: Is there a time that is the most right for impeachment and impeachment with the possibility of conviction? If it does not matter, then we should have impeached Bush last January and we would be past it now. Bush would not have been convicted and would strut around like his lack of conviction means proof of innocence. Then those who are jumping up and down being outraged that impeachment is not happening at this moment would be pissed that Bush walked.

I would like to state that just because I do not favor impeaching Bush at this very moment does not mean that I do not want him impeached. I do, but more so I want to see him convicted or at least have a real possibility of conviction. Impeachment without the possibility of conviction is like having sex without the possibility of orgasm--sure you can brag about your deeds, but ultimately it is unsatisfying and only a shadow of what it could and should be.