Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Nancy Needs To Shut It

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently said that, if Democrats regain control of Congress after this November’s elections, pursuing impeachment for President Bush was “off the table.”

I hope she was either kidding, or lying so as not to scare off moderate voters. No man in the US deserves to lose his job right now more than George Bush. (OK, Rummy runs a close second. OK, and that cashier at Hess last week who took his own sweet time with customers even when the line was out the door.)

If Bush were to be impeached, it would be his own damn fault. But it would also be the fault of his party. Republicants, you see, set the bar for impeachment very low with Bill Clinton.

They and their Democratic counterparts sat impassively as President Reagan faked his way through the Iran-Contra Affair. Though giving weapons and other support to terrorist countries (Iran) and terrorist groups (Contras) was explicitly forbidden by Congress, making doing so a crime, Reagan was given a free pass with his “I do not recall” nonsense.

Still, Republicants could not stomach the affair Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky. They had loathed the man long before he made it to DC, and were looking for any excuse to get rid of him. So they used their control of Congress to try and force him out. Hmm.

Bush II, well, he’s guilty of any number of criminal acts, not the least of which is trying to turn a democracy into a dictatorship. That’s as anti-American as it gets. And his party has helped him along the way with virtually everything he’s asked for, no matter how illegal or just plain wrong.

Add to Bush’s legal transgressions his extreme mismanagement of the country and issues that have impacted (or will impact) it – Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Katrina, etc., etc. – and the reasons for impeachment become too compelling to ignore. Even bosses get fired when they screw up.

Bush should not be relieved of his duties for the sake of political retribution. That tradition is old and tired and would make our government even more unproductive than it has been in recent sessions.

True, the impeachment process would put a strain on the government. It’s a painful process that I do not relish witnessing again. But we can’t allow a task’s difficulty to stop us doing it. And, in light of their severity, we can't allow Bush’s offenses to go unpunished.

I go back to that low bar set for impeachment – if we don’t punish Bush for what he did, what’s to stop a future president of any party from doing worse? There certainly isn’t any deterrent, if we're afraid to use it.

There is perhaps a more palatable alternative to impeachment – a
recall election, a la Gray Davis. That's what happened when voters became disenchanted with his performance as the governor of California. American voters are pretty damn disenchanted with Bush right now. Let's give them another chance to rethink their previous lapses of reason.

18 comments:

Bird said...

be careful what you wish for.

the recall election in california cost us millions of dollars and we got

the govenator,who has spent far more money on campaigning than gray davis ever did (and that was one of the primary complaints against davis).

and we may get ahnuld again for two reasons 1)despite how he has aged (he ain't looking as good as he once did) he still looks far more viorgous and healthy than Angiledes (sp) and is playing that up in his commericals - voters are dumb and go for image over substance every time and 2) no one's really sure Angelides has any substance any way.

but about mpeachment (oh how i do love to ramble on - scrolllllliiing) - even if the dems gain the house and senate, they won't have enough power to impeach bush and i'm not so sure it's the smart thing to do.

but i agree with you - the bar for impeachment was set low by the republicans - though unfortuantely, according to that bar, bush has done nothing to warrant impeachment. he's got to have a little scandulous sex - THAT would be the ticket. surely bogs, you know some female dem undercover agent who could entrap bushie boy?

Pete Bogs said...

bird - don't think we haven't already tried that undercover female agent approach... we've tried everything - dominatrix, cheerleader, Catholic schoolgirl uniform... we can't yet figure out what gets the prez hot... hence, we've been unable to bring him down with a sex scandal...

no approach to removing Bush from office is a good one... but allowing him to remain in power and above the law is the worst scenario of all... that's what I'm saying...

Hellpig said...

Am I wrong? doesnt the president still remain in office if impeached? if not who takes over? if cheney is also impeached doesnt that leave Rice in the seat?

whats the point in spending the 100's of millions to impeach bush? instead shouldnt the dem party try and win a Presidency,considering they have only occupied the white house 12 out of the last 40 years

either way my money is that in less then 2 years the dems will have set this country back 20 years if they gain control of the congress and senate.

First on Pelosi's list HIGHER TAXES

Pete Bogs said...

hell - like I said, there are no good options... Cheney sucks, but the responsibility would give him a heart attack... we'd have to whittle our way down the chain of command until we found a non-criminal... yeah, that'd be hard...

Bush could save the country the difficulties and expense of impeachment by simply resigning... it's the right thing to do... cut his losses and leave DC...

Hellpig said...

I am just wondering if the dems are going to spend the next 2 years raising taxes and dealing w/bush that their hopes in 2008 are slim if none,they still dont have any terrorism mandate or mandate of any kind except trash bush,and if Clinton is the Nominated Dem then '08 is a wash who else even has a chance Gore is out Kerry is out who else is there? anyway I just dont see any Dem protecting the country from anything and the corruption on both sides is pitiful

Hellpig said...

and you never answered my first question......what happens to Bush if impeached? does he leave office?

rusty shakelford said...

Democrats act like this election is a slam dunk. Lets face it Democrat "voters" are by far the laziest of Americans, thats why they crave free health care and high paying jobs for simple work that most animals can be trained to do. Considering all this how are the democrats going to get the base off the couch and into the booth in a mid term election?

Pete Bogs said...

hell - Dems won't just sit and let the country be unprotected... I know it's beneficial for you to say that, but come on...

Bush probably wouldn't be removed, sadly... Clinton wasn't...

rusty - it's no slam dunk... I'm planning a post specifically about the election... this post is about the notion of passing on the chance to punish Bush, IF it comes...

hell, rusty - Bush is tourcher... he wants us to lose in Iraq because he is evil like Rumsfeld who is a tourcher too... he wants to control us all... all politicians are scumm... they are a cancer on the earth and we are better off without them!!!

thanks you?

(how'd you like my sanford impression there? lol)

Bird said...

qutie right - impeachment doesn't equal removal from office. it just wastes a lot of time and resources.

rusty - traditionally, dems are the ones who excell at GOTV campaigns. unfortunately, since all the ballots aren't counted ... well..it doesn't matter...

bogs, perhaps bush would go for different sex bait. has the DNC's secret ops department tried to seduce him via bestiality? pedophillia? necrophillia? or perhaps, as rusty says, the dems are just too damn lazy to come up with an effective entrapment plan.

damn!

Hellpig said...

Bogs u r sanford I knew it

Peaches said...

Glad you are blogging about this. Don't think the rest of the world isn't watching with care. We are!

Pete Bogs said...

bird - the severity of Bush's crime does warrant removal, though...

as far as wasting time and resources, Bush could resign... it's his bad, after all...

hell - no! that's not my writing style...

peaches - it is sometimes easy to forget outside perspectives when, like I do, you have such strong opinions yourself... thanks for reminding us! ;-)

Pete Bogs said...

interesting, Bush is now using the word "benchmarks" in the context if a withdrawal plan for Iraq... either Pelosi or Feinstein criticized the president for not including any specifics or "benchmarks" for withdrawal in his State of the Union speech... they were of course critized from the right as being "cut and run" Democrats...

Hellpig said...

Put simply: There are no grown-ups in the Democrat Party.

Maybe this is what a prematurely giddy Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meant when she told the Los Angeles Times this week: "The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."

Yep. Put the gavel in the hands of Pelosi and the Democrats, and you will put the gavel in the hands of children. Couldn't put it better myself.

Another clarifying moment that underscores the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats on matters of national security, seriousness and secrecy took place on June 29, 2006.

That was the day the U.S. House of Representatives voted to condemn the decision by several newspapers — led by the newspaper of wreckage, The New York Times — to publish details of the Bush administration's classified program to track terrorist financing. Known as SWIFT, the program had led to the capture of a key Bali bombing suspect and identification of a convicted al Qaeda helper based in New York City, as well as helping investigators probing domestic terrorist cells and suspected Islamic charities fronting for jihad. Under specious claims by anonymous accusers that the program's legality and oversight were in doubt, the Times splashed details of the program all over its front pages. Democrats dutifully piled on to condemn the White House for its "illegal" "abuses of power."

But House Republicans refused to roll over for the blabbermouth media and the blabbermouth Democrats. They put Washington on record with a vote on a nonbinding resolution stating the obvious — that news organizations may have "placed the lives of Americans in danger" by disclosing SWIFT and that Congress "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations" in keeping classified programs secret.

The resolution passed 227-183, with only 17 Democrats joining nearly all House Republicans in condemning the leak-dependent news media and supporting the surveillance program.

"This measure attempts to intimidate the press and strengthen the hands of this despotic administration," railed New York Democrat Rep. Maurice Hinchey. "It is a campaign document," pouted Rep. Pelosi in attacking the resolution. Republicans "have adopted a shoot-the-messenger strategy by attacking the newspaper that revealed the existence of the secret bank surveillance program rather than answering the disturbing questions that those reports raise about possible violations of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. privacy laws," wheedled Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass.

Why do I remind you of this vote and the Dems' kindergarten reaction? Because the Times' own ombudsman admitted this week that the story should never have run. Public editor Byron Calame 'fessed up: "I don't think the article should have been published. . . . I haven't found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal. . . . The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight."

Not a single one of the Democrats who lambasted Bush and Republicans for protesting the reckless story has stepped forward to apologize to the president and the American people or acknowledge the harm caused to counterterrorism efforts.

Do you need to know any more to judge which party will keep this country safer? I don't.

Pete Bogs said...

hell - Bush and his Republicants have apologized for DICK... and they have a lot to apologize for... no WMDs in Iraq? no Al Qaida in Iraq before the war? no armor for our troops? OOPS! but no apologies to the 3000 dead and their families for failing to do their homework and legwork for this war... Dems have not been in power for years, and hence have little to apologize for... it's all come from the other side...

I don't want to give up my protections from being spied upon by my government or others, not even for the so-called war on terror... if we didn't have whistleblowers we'd never know we were being violated...

that said, this post was about punishing Bush for his myriad fuckups... there are many... and since others were punished for lesser crimes, he certainly should be...

Hellpig said...

When have I ever stayed on topic? no need to keep pointing out ability to focus........

Bird said...

can't resist...

INABILITY to focus,pig, inability.

but it's scary - because i'm beginning to agree with you on some things (the dems, sort of, kind of, well, maybe, just a little, not so much, but still...)

inability to decide.

that's the dems' problem and mine of late.

Pete Bogs said...

bird - don't give in to the dark side... somewhere right now, Karl Rove is smiling...