Impeachment Time

From all accounts, last weekend--the weekend of September 11--George W. Bush was too much of a coward to dare say the words "Osama bin Laden," as in the sentence: "Osama bin Laden is still alive."

Just sayin'.

Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach him now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050910.html

Comments

[Saam Barrager]

Who?

I'd like to ask a serious question: what are impeachable offenses? Stealing files from the Democratic Party, plus money laundering et al used to be one.

Lying about a blowjob is another, appearently.

Between the two dropping the ball on what you yourself have declared to be a war seems like it would be a much better match than the blowjob lie, but is it really a "high crime"?

Don't get me wrong, an honest government with real checks and balances would have cashed this guy in a long time ago, but what would have been on the list of reasons?

[ogmb]

Starting an illegal invasion.

[bad Jim]

I don't know who lines the streets with flags in my town; it's probably the American Legion. There were no flags downtown on Labor Day, and I was apalled. There was a surfeit of flags on September 11, Osama bin Laden Day, and I was offended.

I'm pretty sure we didn't celebrate Pearl Harbor Day back in 1945. After four years we'd already won that war.

[RedWolf]

It seems that the Constitution does not provide for the impeachment of a grossly incompetent, lazy, ignorant, dumb and arrogant President.

It does seem to support Indian genocide, internment of Japanese Americans, unbounded imprisonment of Americans citizens, and, of course, wholesale killing of Iraqis and American soldiers.

Don't lose hope, however, sedition by Starr-like prods is also nicely accommodated.

[christo]

Osama Been Living for a long time more. The Rummy announced they will draw down a fifth of the troops in Afghanistan next year. Whatever they have going on there and Pakistan now isn't enough to do the job of hunting down the most successful surprise attacker on the U. S. ever.

As to anon e mouse, if you intended any humor, I missed it. If that wasn't a weak attempt, stick it. Go back to your hole.

[realist]

unless enough democrats, with more than a dram of testicularity, get elected in the the next congressional election, bushco will continue to rule his serfdom with impunity. the majority of the american people understand extra-marital blowjobs far better than they understand bushco's enriching your friends and family-style capitalism.

[Frans Groenendijk]

He did not mention Iraq either...

I do agree with Saam by the way.
Bush is not going to be impeached. So repeating the sentence somehow contributes to a feeling of being without the power to do anything I am afraid.

[kharris]

At the time that bin Laden organized an attack against us, the value of making him, personally, the target of actual reprisal is open to debate. However, once he was made the target of rhetorical reprisal, by the President of the United States, a couple of very big issues were raised. We probably don't gain much ground in the coercive force arena by making hollow threats. You make a threat, you carry through. That is simple and unequivocal. It's true that the US has lost massive coercive advantage by thrashing around helplessly in Iraq, much more than through hollow threats against bin Laden, but that doesn't alter the fact that you don't do yourself any good by issuing hollow threats.

The other issue is that Bush trumped up support for tax cuts, limits on civil liberties, and members of his own party at the midterm by carrying on about bin Laden (while sending his henchmen out to question the patriotism of anybody who saw things differently). It is perfectly legitimate to point out now what a weasel he is, without regard to whether getting bin Laden was, at the outset, a goal worth pursuing.

[krimpet]

Do you really think he's alive? i'm guesssing he died a long time ago, but we're propping him up beacuse it works better for the perpetual war agenda.

[SERO]

"At the time that bin Laden organized an attack against us ..."

Khaled Sheikh Mohammed organised the attack.He was captured in Rawalpindi in March 2003. His co-planner was Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh.He was captured in Karachi in September 2002.

UBL, who may have as much grasp of quotidian detail as your own dear leader ('Ayman, how do you work this goddamn DVD ?'), gave his imprimatur to the attack.

The War on Terror is so amorphous and so faith-based it is important for us to hold on to such facts as are available. Evidence-based medicine and all that.

[Judy]

Impeachment won't solve the problem: it would leave Cheney or Hastert in office. Which would be odious. Wish we could have a recall election. I think we just have to stick it out for 3 miserable years.

[save_the_rustbelt]

At least it is pretty clear George Bush never had a blowjob.

To quote Robin Williams in "Good Morning Viet Nam."

"You need a blowjob more than any white man on this earth."

Predictions:

Severe recession in 2007.

Democrats nominate a really bad candidate in 2008.

Close election, won by _________________.

[Karlsfini (the Prophet)]

Bush's role was only to get the thugs in office, but now he's somewhat useful as a patsy.

There are more big gambles and lots of reckless abuse of power still to come. When these go sour, as they surely will, Bush will accept responsiblity for what was done right and what was done wrong, pass out blanket pardons and resign. The Michael Brown game works at all levels.

Being president is hard work and he's had enough of that. He'd rather be a venerated do-nothing in the Reagan mold and simply adorn the party. He dreams of being promoted to an icon like lazy, simple-minded ol' Dutch.

Cheney will then appoint someone worse than anyone now imagines as acting VP and that sleaze ball, heretofore
utterly unacceptable (like Bolton) will be groomed for '08.

[Richard Cownie]

On the subject of cowardice, how about the reports that while Bush
visited Mississipi, all rescue/relief helicopter flights were
grounded, presumably as a security measure ? The measures taken
to ensure Bush's personal safety seem grossly (and in this case
probably lethally) excessive.

[Camilo]

What has to happen under this guy's watch to deserve impeachement? I know, I know, intelligence briefings titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the U.S." are too ambiguous, anyone could have missed that one! And Katrina took everyone by surprise; there was no way of knowing those levees would break! But c'mon...there's no excuse for Karl Rove. Seriously guys, south of the border we look to you guys for inspiration and direction. If we can't believe in you, if you start to look like us, what are we supposed to do then? Wreckless, criminally negligent and corrupt governments were supposed to be OUR specialty; what's going on here?

[s9]

"If one doubts that Bush-hating is bad for your mental health, one need only refer to the sad, sad case of Mr. Brad DeLong."

Please don't send me to the mental health authorities. I *love* Dear Leader. George W. Bush is the Greatest President Ever! His ever-glorious magnificence as our commander-in-chief is a blessing on all the peoples of the world! I love the President! I love George W. Bush! Long live W! Long Live W! LONG LIVE W!

[Dale]

"If one doubts that Bush-hating is bad for your mental health, one need only refer to the sad, sad case of Mr. Brad DeLong."

Bush-hating may or may not be bad for one's mental health. But it is a sure sign of a healthy respect for truth and a healthy moral sensibility and healthy sense of being a responsible citizen.

But the disconnect between those healthy personal insights and the reality of the current political scene is a little crazy making.

[Esq.]

The articles of impeachment could easily include:

1) Crimes Against Peace (illegal invasion)
2) Crimes Against Humanity (torture)

You may not be aware that the Nuremburg trials were mainly about Crimes Against Peace, NOT the Holocaust.

Rummy, Wolfowitz, Liberman and Rush, among others, would make fine co-defendants for the criminal trial after the impeachment.

Considering that Bush is such a big fan of capital punishment, I'm sure he wouldn't mind that the precedent for Crimes Against Peace is the gallows.

[Esq.]

The articles of impeachment could easily include:

1) Crimes Against Peace (illegal invasion)
2) Crimes Against Humanity (torture)

You may not be aware that the Nuremburg trials were mainly about Crimes Against Peace, NOT the Holocaust.

Rummy, Wolfowitz, Liberman and Rush, among others, would make fine co-defendants for the criminal trial after the impeachment.

Considering that Bush is such a big fan of capital punishment, I'm sure he wouldn't mind that the precedent for Crimes Against Peace is the gallows.

[Fifi]

Esq,

There's one bad thing about those charges. So, let's assume they are upheld in a (I said, "let's assume"!) trial against GWB, Rummy, Cheney and al. America would implicitly endorse responsability for those crimes, in particular in terms of compensations to the victims. No effin' way! The foreign debt is already bad enough. Just ask Brad.

So you need charges for which America is the victim, not the accomplice.

Try harder.

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

This is all well and good, but I haven't seen any lecture notes for ec-101b. How will I continue my correspondence education?

[Wu Chi]

How about membership in a conspiracy to out Valerie Plame? Seems like a crime to me....

[erg]

George Bush should be impeached for lying over Iraq. He should then be tried for high treason (leading us into a war on false pretenses). A few years in a federal facility is what W needs.

[Easter Lemming Liberal News]

I no longer think that being a lying incompetent weasel and the worst president of the United States is an impeachable offense.

Now convicting 'Bush's Brain' and Libby for treason for exposing an undercover anti-WMD CIA agent is something doable.

Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest
now with 100% more snark and 30% more pictures.

[RT]

Grounds for impeachment:

1. Having lied us into war.

This was proven well before the Downing Street Memos. Go look up Barton Gellmann's article in the May 11, 2003 WaPo. What it says, in a nutshell, is that the Administration's war plan didn't take Iraqi WMDs, or the threat that they might end up in terrorist hands, particularly seriously, despite their supposedly being the justification for the war.

Specifically, there were not enough troops to both guard prospective WMD sites when our front lines came upon them, and continue to drive to Baghdad. So they drove on to Baghdad and left the prospective WMD sites unchecked and unguarded for days, during which time they were looted to the ground.

A few quick facts:
a) No one in the Administration has ever evinced the least bit of concern about the possibility that there may have been WMDs at these sites, or that they might have been for sale soon afterwards in a Middle Eastern bazaar.
b) In advance of the war, Rumsfeld cut troop levels for the war over and over and over again. He's the reason why there weren't enough troops for both missions.
c) Rumsfeld is still SecDef.

2) The creation of the American gulag - Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, assorted other sites in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of course the 'extraordinary renditions'.

3) Bush's repeated denial of the effective existence of a good chunk of the public debt - the Social Security trust fund - in clear and specific violation of the first sentence of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.

4) Bush's sloth and negligence in the face of Hurricane Katrina, resulting in the deaths of hundreds - still quite possibly thousands - of Americans.

That's my bill of impeachment.

Dear House Dems: which one of you nuts has got any guts?

[DOR]

Last time I checked, neither house of congress was controlled by Democrats, so don't hold your breath.

Better:
HBO's "Late Night with Bill Maher" -- his open letter to the President:

Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people.

Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's speaking to you. Mission accomplished. Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away.

Like you did with your military service and the oil company and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man?

Now I know what you're saying: there's so many other things that you as President could involve yourself in. Please don't.

I know, I know. There's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.

But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised that you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.

On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky.

I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side. So, yes, God does speak to you.

What he is saying is: "Take a hint."

[maracucho]

Impeachment is a fallacious remedy because it never has and never will be used against a majority President- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were faced with Congressional majorities who loathed them- neither had committed real crimes. The US has made incursions into over 40 countries in the last 50 years- not one of them has resulted in any possibility of impeachment- we like to like to hear about kicking butt and we don't like to hear about stupid or venal actions of our government. A parliamentary system in which the PM can be voted out is a much more rational system, but doesn’t fit with the religious overtones of fundamentalist Protestantism- of course Clinton was a womanizer - he shoulda been turned into a pillar of salt. We are sliding into a tyranny of the majority who scapegoat minorities for the problems in the US economy.

Impeachment doesn't merit serious discussion because Mr. Bush has opened the floodgates of spending. Our grandchildren will pay the bill but even now the wages that laborers get who work on the gulf Coast will go down and the public will lap it up. Just by chance, it’s Bush buddies at Bechtel, Blackwater and Halliburton getting those contracts. It’s not rotten fish that I smell – it’s a rotten system. You can rant about impeachment or you can start working for real change, like Mr. Norquist did.

[Esq.]

"The US has made incursions into over 40 countries in the last 50 years- not one of them has resulted in any possibility of impeachment"

Very true. There will be no impeachment for Iraq. We have utterly ignored the international law that Justice Jackson and so many others worked so hard to create. Iraq is just the biggest and most blatant invasion. But, I doubt 40 is the actual number of violations, most interventions have the legal cover of an invitation by a de jure legitimate government.

I will not be surprised, however, if Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc., someday join the Hank Kissinger Club of Americans who cannot travel overseas for fear of arrest for Crimes against Humanity. Since Bush reportedly never went anywhere but Mexico prior to being elected, he may not even notice.

[Laconic]

Prescription for impeachment:
1. the charges: criminal negligence and negligent multiple homicide. There are others, but these will stick.
2. the means: Democratic majority in House and Senate in 2006.

[J Thomas]

Here's an alternate scenario. Republicans who're up for re-election in 2006 have all supported the war. Will that be a problem for them? If they think we'll be winning in iraq by that time, or if they think the voters don't blame them for it, then disregard everything from here on.

They don't want democrats to replace them. If they think iraq is an issue, they'll want Bush to pull out of iraq. It isn't enough to draw down troop levels. When 120,000 troops look like they're losing, 60,000 troops will look like they're losing faster. Drawdown is no good. But when Bush pulls out of iraq they can say "It's over. It's old news. We did the right thing going in there. There was no way for us to know that iraqis weren't ready for democracy. It just didn't work and I'm sorry about that. Now we need recognition and compensation for our brave veterans, and we need to find out why it didn't work so if we ever have to do something like this again it *will* work next time. Thank you, next question?".

As long as Bush pulls out without them publicly telling him to, they won't be blamed for the pull=out and the war won't be such a campaign issue after it's over.

So if they believe this is worth doing, the natural next step is to privately tell Bush that they'll impeach him unless he pulls all the way out of iraq by some date. May 2006? He can take the responsibility, he isn't running for re-election. The impeachment can be about something completely unrelated, all that matters is that it be a credible threat.

Why should republicans give the democrats iraq as an election issue? What do they get out of it?

If you want to run as a democrat, better be ready to use the iraq issue if it's there, and be ready to run without it too.