Impeaching Bush?
54Impeachment
Caveats: I am not a legal expert, so everything I state here is biased by my own opinion and research. Also, I am no fan of George W. Bush just as generally I could not be counted amongst the fans of Bill Clinton. However, i am a real fan of equal justice. So, with that in mind, OK, here goes.
When Bill Clinton was president there was an active and very zealous group of Republicans whose sole purpose seemed to be to catch him doing something they didn't like and then pressing him to the point where they could say "Gotcha!"
Well, foolishly, Bill Clinton gave them an excuse when he dallied with Monica Lewisnski, and she foolishly confessed to Linda Tripp, who then blabbed to the press and others.
In a vain and stupid attempt to avoid the scandal, Clinton denied the charges and that somehow became the grounds for his eventual impeachment by the Congress of the United States.
Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent to catch, indict, charge and eventually threaten prosecution of a sitting President of the United States for having messed around with an intern. No excuses for creating a mountain out of a molehill or concern for national security or national embarrassment were ever cited by the Republicans when they went hunting for bear. Not one of those servants of the people ever said, "Hey, wait a minute - shouldn't this be a case for divorce court?"
In a strange way, one has to admire how they managed to do what they did, how they managed to distract us from the true political reasons behind their prosecution of the entire affair, even if, like me, you think it was underhanded, stupid and basically hurtful to the country.
Don't get me wrong, it was wrong of Bill Clinton to have dallied with Lewisnski, and if I were Hillary I would have been as angry as a hive of bees over the matter. But how did this act of carnal lust become a cause for impeachment? Why wasn't it just left to be resolved by the Clintons?
Well, lying to a grand jury is bad enough, but why should Bill Clinton have been the target of an investigation into marital infidelity that should have in the first place landed him before a Congressionally-inspired grand jury? The case just didn't seem to merit the scrutiny of Congress in the first place! Or, am I wrong about this? It seemed to me to be akin to a classic case of entrapment.
OK, there's nothing we can do to go back and change the past, so it happened, and we all know that it was a huge embarrassment to each of us, no matter how you feel about the efficacy of such procedures and tactics or the fact that Bill Clinton messed around outside his marriage. But where today is the justice and the sense of fairness that the Republicans claimed was their moral high ground when going after Bill Clinton? Why are they not just as enraged by the President sitting in office today, who, arguably perhaps, took us to war with the wrong enemy and left us less secure than than before?
Well, the time has come to admit that our political system and our public servants in the government have let all of us down. Maybe it's time to demand an accounting, and, if necessary, a change to the status quo as we view it today. I remind all of us who are Americans that our ancestors founded this nation so that it would allow us to demand of it justice as well as leadership. If we have neither, if we are lied to, then it is up to us to act, just as it was up to people like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and others to act in the face of injustice and favoritism and leaders who were above the law.
Case in point: Today we have a sitting president who led us into a needless war, who has the blood of over 4,000 dead American soldiers, (plus thousands more wounded), and many more non-combatants and allied troops on his shoulders, and we do nothing. The fact that he and those around him apparently lied to us to get us involved seems to have have escaped the notice of those do-gooders in the Republican Party who saw Clinton's escapades as high crimes and misdemeanors, and in all truth, the Democratic Party as well. To put it plainly, I just don't get it! When is a crime not a crime?
We have a sitting vice-president who is alleged to have participated in numerous actions that are either potentially unconstitutional, or at the very least, extra-constitutional, and he and his subordinates continue to get away with allegedly committing actions that are not legal.
And worse yet, Dick Cheney claims executive privilege for himself and his cronies, when he & they do not really deserve it! He also claims that he is not under certain aspects of the law because he is the Vice President, but he's really not: He is a member of the Senate, In other words, he wants it both ways, and, in my opinion, he does this simply to skirt the law and squirm out of illegal activities.
My question is as follows: Why is there no action in the Congress, apart from Gary Kusinich's bold but vain attempts to read into the Constitutional Record his Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush and Dick Cheney and others?
Why does no one else in Congress, either Republican or Democrat, or better yet, we the People, for whom they allegedly work, take up action to make sure that justice is fair and equal for all? If Bill Clinton can get impeached essentially for lying about 'not having sex with that woman', then how come G. W. Bush et al are not officially brought to justice for high crimes and misdemeanors as demanded by the Constitution of the United States?
Well, money talks and justice walks, to paraphrase an old dictum. Those in power tend to get away with a lot of things for which you and I would be tossed into the slammer. That apparently includes high crimes and misdemeanors.
So, as I sit here, jobless, soon to be homeless, I have to wonder why my taxes should go to pay the pension of Bush and Cheney, who, in my humble opinion, should be sitting in a jail cell for the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors with which our government must and should immediately charge them.
In my opinion, if no actions are taken to rectify this embarrassing situation then we might just as well give up and admit that we no longer care about truly and completely believing in our way of government, or our freedoms, or even anything other than the quality of our creature comforts.
The founders of this nation cautioned that temerity in the face of injustice would be the undoing of us all, and that is a fact we can not ignore save at our own peril. However, I truly fear that we will, in the end, give in to the comfort of doing and saying nothing, because we are afraid. Afraid we may be, but where would we be if Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and others were not bold enough to overcome their own fears and act?
In short, patriotism is not some act of old times - it is not simply getting teary eyed at seeing the flag, or watching fireworks on the 4th of July - it is the ongoing responsibility, better yet, the demand that We the People keep careful watch over those who we send to be our elected leaders as well as to demand that all unelected officials (especially unelected officials!) be equally held accountable for their actions.
A Democracy that sleeps will wake up to find itself no longer a Democracy.
I quote Benjamin Franklin, one of my heroes:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
"A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges. "
"A small leak can sink a great ship. "
"Half a truth is often a great lie."
And some quotes by other people:
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. - Edward Abbey
The opposite of bravery is not cowardice but conformity. - Robert Anthony
My belief has always been ... that wherever in this land any individual's constitutional rights are being unjustly denied, it is the obligation of the federal government-at point of bayonet if necessary-to restore that constitutional rights - Ronald Reagan, Press conference 17 May 83
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. - Samuel Adams
McVeigh said he blew up the building in Oklahoma City to protest the federal government's actions in Waco -- and he was quickly apprehended, tried, and punished for his crime. That was proper, even if you might disagree with the morality of the death sentence.
However, not a single FBI or BATF agent was arrested for their role in the fiery deaths of 86 people at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. There should not be one standard of justice for ordinary Americans, and another for government officials. Until that injustice is eliminated, many Americans will continue to view their government with suspicion, fear, and bitterness.
People tend to turn to violence only when they feel they have no other way to be heard. When Americans feel they have a role in the political system, they will work through the political system to make productive changes. When that avenue is blocked -- either by restrictive ballot access laws, legal curbs on political speech, exclusion from debates, or by attempting to discredit unpopular political speech -- the Timothy McVeighs of the world turn to violence.
That's why robust political debate -- especially about the abuse of government power -- is a healthy way to change the system. And that's why stifling such debate is downright dangerous. - Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party Press release, June 12, 2001
Benjamin Franklin
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Hey Chef Jeff,
I could never understand why Monica wasn't also accountable. She was an adult of voting age. She knew Bill was married. I hold women who play around with married men responsible- my 21 year old certainly knows this is not acceptable behavior. If ML were intelligence challenged she wouldn't have been an intern... I hope.
Anyway, let's talk about your jobless soon to be homeless state of being. Where are you looking for work? What are you wanting to do? What is your skill set? Surely the Hubsters who read and appreciate you can support you in all this with either good cheer or connections-- or before you lose your home, with some financial backing. Yes, under Bush the country has gone to hell and a handbag, whatever that means, but let's focus on what really matters in this moment...
YOU!
I loved your hub and I loved your quotes. I'm sorry for your woes, there are many in that position. I manage storage sites, and many people are either moving out due to selling their home and downsizing all of their possessions, or losing their home and downsizing all of their possessions. Some move in to storage to keep a few of their things while they find a new home, but the business has changed drastically.
The dominoes are banging against each other at a rapid pace. We are having to be creative with pricing and give over the top service to even get their attention.
And, down the street, a big storage place is going up - further diluting the market...where do they get the money to build something that is not needed?
I have no clue about why Bush has escaped impeachment, I believe that CJ has hit upon a scarey but probably true scenario...Do the Democrats want their piece of the bitter pie? Bitter to us anyway.
I wish you the best of luck and hope your cloud will have a silver lining! We enjoy your opinions! =)
Probably the reason lies at the very beginning of your hub. Impeachment should not be based on opinion, but on fact. Even Richard Nixon's forced resignation didn't hinge on the Vietnam War, but on lying. The case against Bill Clinton was not about his dalliance with Monica, it was about his supposed lying under oath and even though he was impeached he was acquitted by the senate.
Impeachment should not be a tool of political revenge. It should be considered only when there is clear evidence of a breach of law, all opinions aside.
CW
Christian Walker, I agree that opinion and personal vendetta should not be use to impeach, and Richard Nixon did indeed lie to the American People and that was what led to his downfall.
My gripe about Clinton was that an extra-marital affair suddenly became the fodder for a Republican vendetta to get him out of office.
They also spent millions of Whitewater and apparently didn't come up with much. Kenneth Starr also spent about 70 million dollars to "get" Clinton on the Lewinski-Jones charges. In the end if I recall he was only able to get obstruction of justice and perjury, bad enough, I suppose, but grounds for impeachment? That point has been debated by Constitutional law scholars and I believe Starr comes up short for his conduct and pressing the impeachment issue.
Let’s face it – they simply hated Clinton and wanted him out of there.
But in my opinion Starr's techniques of leaking long-winded pornographic and politicized information to the press certain did not bring credibility to his part in the matter. I firmly believe that Monica was not Bill's first extra-marital affair, but I still believe that marital infidelity is not a matter for creating a grand jury.
If I remember correctly Clinton's lie before the sexual harassment lawsuit brought about by Paula Jones, who was in turn receiving help from an undisclosed outside source, was what the entire thing hinged on. Then after this he had to swear out a disposition to the grand jury about his dallying with Monica Lewinski. After that Linda Tripp released her tape to Starr, who concluded that Clinton had lied concerning Lewinski. Timing is everything.
Of course Clinton stated he meant he hadn't had vaginal intercourse with Lewinski and even the judge had to ask for some clarification. My point is that the entire thing was simple a fishing expedition and Clinton stupidly got caught up in his own lies. But does that meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors challenge under the Constitutional test? Obviously not, since Clinton was no found guilty. Still, he had his day in court and was forced to defend himself before the American People.
But if Clinton's lying about a blow-job brought about such a furor, then why does not Bush's alleged lying about leading us into war in Iraq? And what about the obstruction of justice that Bush and Cheney may be committing by not allowing papers and other pertinent information to be released to the appropriate Congressional Oversight committees? Congress has the right and the duty to oversee these matters, and by failing, and refusing to hand over pertinent and related materials, are the President and Vice President not in danger of being charged with obstruction of justice?
On top of all that Bush has allegedly withheld materials that could have been used by those who opposed his call for war in Iraq. The evidence that spoke against the case for war allegedly was suppressed and kept from those whose votes and opinions counted most. People, who in good conscience voted for the war were, in my opinion, fed false information.
As for George Bush, in my opinion, I believe that laws have been broken. As for Dick Cheney in my opinion I am more convinced that certain laws have been broken. If the evidence does not back this up, then no impeachment should be called for. If, however, the proof is there, and meets the Constitutional tests for impeachment, then impeachment needs to be on the table. Just the same, obstruction of justice in withholding the evidence needed to oversee the case is tantamount in my mind to the obstruction of justice Bill Clinton was charged with. Fair is fair.
Impeachment won't happen, however, because I believe that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do not want the stigma of an impeachment and trial so close to the elections. Such matters have a way of backfiring on those who call for them.
Now, if the Republicans were so all-fired worried about Clinton's alleged law-breaking, why were they not also interested in the alleged law-breaking by the current president and vice president? Fair is fair, and the Republicans as well as Democrats seem to have a rather selective sense of fair play in these matters. We Americans have been ill-served by our leaders.
My lament is that we seem to cheer when the "other" guy gets caught, and deny guilt when “our own” guy gets charged.
Another great commentary, Chef Jeff. My opinions on the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the failure to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney mirror your own. In fact, I've written a number of hubs relating to Clinton's impeachment, which was simply a political farce. Democrats today should certainly support Dennis Kucinich's efforts toward impeachment -- and honest Republicans should have the courage as well to take action against Bush and Cheney.
Chef: Being a Canadian (eh?) I am not too qualified to say much first-hand about politics beneath the belt...I mean...beneath the border...but I always enjoy the stimulating hubs you write on the topic as an exercise in thinking. Thanks!
I agree that the impeachment of Clinton was motivated by politics, but he did leave his enemies the clear opportunity to proceed. The Senate restored some sanity to the situation by acquiring him. However, the argument that just because they did it to our guy we should do it to theirs is exactly what is wrong with our modern big-party politics.
It is time to get our leaders out of the sandbox! There is a clear reason congress is polling at 9%. We think they stink. We also think the presidency stinks and more sand throwing between the parties which are nearly identical in the way they run the country smacks of power grabbing rather than leading.
I want to have grown-ups to vote for and not school-yard bullies. I believe that there are far weightier problems that our politicians should be tackling other than throwing sand at each other.
They remind me of the two birds that dropped onto the road in front of our house and were flattened by a truck. The birds were busy fighting with each other and forgot to fly.
Sincerely,
CW
Christian Walker, generally I agree with you and I am not advocating either a witch hunt or revenge in this situation.
There are allegations of wrong doing and illegal actions taken by the Bush administration, especially on the part of Vice President Cheney and his ally, Karl Rove.
Cheney has equivocated on the issue, creating the false impression that he is not covered under the auspices of Congressional oversight. Congress has a clear Constitutional duty to conduct oversight and yet V.P. Cheney denies that it petains to him and therefore he stalls and prevaricates. He denies he is part of the government, claims that by being the deciding vote in the Senate he is not actually Vice President, and other foolish allegations that cloud the issue.
Congress should immediately arrest Karl Rove for contempt of Congress and put the Vice President on notice that they will take any and all action necessary to force him to hand over any and all pertintent information he has concerning the allegations and possible charges pending against him and his immediate subordinates, current and past.
President Bush should immediately obey his oath to defend the Constitution by instructing the Vice President to immediately hand over any and all pertintent information subpoened by Congress. Failure to do so should be viewed as obstruction of justice, and the President should immediately be cited with Contempt of Congress, pending Impeachment and trial in the Senate.
Republicans especially should be outraged at this breech of Congressional Oversight and should be in the lead calling for President Bush to comply or face charges of obstruction of Justice. They were, after all, in the lead when President Clinton lied and opened the door for charges of obstruction of justice. If they were truly interested in the letter of the law then, should they not also be so vehement now?
You are right that the Republicans and Democrats are like those two birds, except that this time it is not Democrats verses Republicans: It is Congress vs. the Executive Branch, which to me seems as if it should be quite apart from and above the usual partisan fray.
The Bush adminstration is alleged to have broken the law, and the way one answers those allegations is through the process of Congressional Oversight, as stated in the Constitutioon of the United States. Unless, of course, the Bush administration believes it is above the Constitution?
This is, by my understanding, the way the Constitution is set up to protect the People of the United States against crimes being committed, or allegedly being committed, by elected officials in the Executive Branch of the government. Failure to follow through to determine if there has been a crime or crimes committed by our President and Vice President are, in my humble opinion, a failure of Congress to address the issues of oversight, which is demanded by the Constitution, and We, the People. This, to me, smacks of treason on the part of our elected officials.
I am not calling for a hysterical witch hunt or revenge. I am calling for the Congress to uphold its Constitutional obligations and for the Executive Branch of the government to submit itself to scrutiny by the proper Congressional Oversight Committees for the purpose of answering allegations of having committed illegal acts while in office.
Either we have a functioning government, or we do not. If we do not, then the Constitution gives us the right to change the government and create one that functions. Ours is a republic, and We the People are, after all, the true government, and we elect leaders to do our will. If they fail to do our will, then we have every Constitutional right to demand that they step down and be replaced by those competent to rule.
If the current Congress has a 9% approval rating, then it needs to be replaced by people with backbone, public servants who both understand and will follow the contract we elect them to obey, and thus to fulfill their duties to us, to We, the People. We must demand of our leaders better than we have been given.
I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I am an Independent. Both parties have to work mighty hard to earn my vote. Would that it were so for every voter.
I see your points, but historically speaking Abraham Lincoln did far worse than Bush in breaking the law. Clinton wasn't charged with obstruction, he was charged with perjury. I, for the record, think it was a huge waste of money to go after Clinton, and I think it would be an equal waste of money to go after Bush.
The Senate is a very cautious beast and would no more convict Bush than it did Clinton. I applaud the current congress--one of the few things I can applaud them on--for not going down that rabbit hole, unlike the republican congress which wasted time, effort, and money on a huge political witch hunt.
CW
I understand what you say, CW, and I agree that nothing will be done. You are right that the charges against Clinton were for false testimony, but at first he was threatened with obstruction, mostly with the "travel gate" affair.
I do not defend what Clinton did and I personally believe that there were other things he may have done that were worthy of possible impeachment. However, the Congress at the time took the low road and got involved with an extra-marital affair and by clever posturing and accusation allowed that to be the reason for which they went ahead with their indictment.
The thing I am getting at is that the Republicans, who championed this cause against Clinton, are playing politics now as much as or more than the Democrats. If they are for honesty and good government, as they claimed back then, they should still be for the same things, or else they are just as hypocritical as they claim the Democrats are.
No, the Congress will not act, and again we will have a do-nothing government that allows (allegedly) corruption and wrong doing to go unpunished. If I were doing some of the things the Bush administration is alleged to have done, I would be in jail by now and charged with crimes against the people. Some might even claim I would be worthy of being accused of treason.
I still find it strange that Anne Coulter could produce a book claiming Democrats are traitors, but she remains strangely silent on when someone on her own side of the issues commits allegedly far more heinous crimes.
I hear you. The bottom line is that most politicians left or right are morally challenged. As for Anne Coulter, she is what she is. We listen to these commentators and gravitate toward those we agree with, but in truth most of them desire only to inflame and profit from us, weather they be a Coulter or a Sharpton.
It would be nice if it wern't so. Keep up the thought provoking hubs.
CW
CJStone says:
16 months ago
I read an interesting analysis somewhere that suggested that the reason the Democrats aren't interested in Impeachment is that, as the ones who will have the next sitting president, it is they who will inherit all the new powers that Bush has acquired for the office, including, it seems, the power to torture, to lie, to murder, and to enrich oneself at the nation's expense. It's just a case of who get's their snout in the trough next.