Saturday, March 25, 2006


Why shouldn't Congress impeach George W. Bush? MSN suggests the rumblings are getting louder.

If I said to you that one of the last two Presidents were impeached, then provided you with the following facts:

1. One President lied about a country having weapons of mass destruction, so that he could go to war against it, allowed countries like Uzbekistan to 'interrogate' suspects, ran and runs a Cuban gulag (which to this day holds an Australian citizen without trial), brazenly asserted that the Geneva Conventions prohibitiing torture 'do not apply' and openly wiretapped domestic citizens' telephone calls without any warrant or judicial oversight whatsoever, as well as had a staffer who allegedly was involved in outing a CIA agent, whilst

2. The other President had sex with a White House intern,

which would you think got impeached? What kind of world are we living in?


Blogger Dash Brannigan said...

The second fact you state, while being a fact isn’t why Clinton was impeached. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of the justice system.

There were also two other charges, a second count of perjury and a charge of abuse of power. But didn't get through the house of reps.

2:37 pm  
Blogger Not my real name said...

Yeah yeah I know. Really, though, the whole thing was based upon the moralising that surrounded the affair with Lewinsky. I guess my point was that George Bush hasn't really even been QUESTIONED about this kind of stuff, and I guarantee that he has lied as well. We just haven't bothered putting him on the stand to find out.

Also, there was a much stronger case for obstruction in George Bush's case, where the admin tried to silence NY Times reporters who were leaked to over the Plame affair. The admin tried to cover up its own, very illegal outing of a CIA agent, which blew up in its face when the Supreme Court sent those reporters to jail.

All I am saying is that the standards of 'lying' for Bill Clinton and the standards of 'lying' for George Bush just do not add up.

5:31 pm  
Blogger Dash Brannigan said...

I wouldn’t say it was based on moralism, I would say it was based upon them gunning for Bill. I think Bill had done some things which were rather suspect (not the whole cigar thing that was really the least of it) but things like Whitewater and the like.

Also, congress didn’t like him mainly because he was a democrat.

It’s also important to note that only TWO Presidents have been impeached. Prizes for guessing who!!

In fact I’ll give you too facts (much like you did) both are Presidents serving one after the other. Guess which one was impeached.

1) Sanctioned military actions which killed many American lives (many thousands that is)
2) Failed to proper procedure for removing a secretary from office.

Once you guess I’ll tell you my point from all this.

8:35 pm  
Blogger Not my real name said...

Not sure - I know Andrew Johnson was in the 1860s and I thought Nixon was, but clearly if there are only two, they can't be it!

Maybe Abraham Lincoln?

In any case, the general point I was making was that, by the standards of Bill Clinton, Bush's behaviour and, in particular, destruction of civil liberties in the name of a war of abstraction, is much much worse.

10:25 pm  
Blogger Dash Brannigan said...

Yes you are correct. Johnson was the guy I was referring to. The other chap was Abe Lincoln. Johnson booted the secretary of war without following proper procedure. Nixon was never impeached. He showed them a clean pair of heels before they could do it.

The point I was really trying to get at is

1) It’s easy to put a spin on anything to make it sound shocking or more shocking that it is
2) Impeachment is something very rarely done if at all.
3) Impeachment is not a question of “COULD we impeach Bush?” but “SHOULD we impeach Bush?’

With Clinton it was more about partisan politics than anything else. With Bush it would be along the same lines.

I’m not really talking about relative standards (Bush Vs. Clinton) I’m talking about over all standards. Impeachment represents is something that is so destructive to the soul of a country and its absolute standard should be set to reflect this gravity.

Here’s your prize

With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.

-Abraham Lincoln

6:33 pm  
Blogger Not my real name said...

And I really believe in this case that Bush has reached this absolute standard, which I agree should be set very high. I guess I don't think Clinton ever reached that standard.

All very interesting.

9:32 pm  
Blogger Dash Brannigan said...

Should Kennedy have been impeached? I mean regarding Bay of Pigs and Vietnam. Not to mention making the president with two backs with Marylin Monroe.

Just a thought, well question really.

10:20 pm  
Blogger Not my real name said...

Not the sex, that is his business. I don't know enough about that stuff, really, to make a judgement.

However, you are right that it should only happen rarely. I just can't imagine anybody having ever breached so many rules so openly and brazenly in the history of the American Presidency. Again, however, I probably don't know enough to make that call.

10:33 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home