The case for impeaching the President

[thatcrazycajun]

In the past six years he has held the office (to which his electoral claim is still suspect, based on reports from Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004), Geo. W. Bush has committed the following offenses against the law and common decency:

• Imprisoning persons, both citizens and foreign nationals, without charge for long periods, with no recourse to courts for redress, simply on the basis of nationality, ethnic or national ancestry or type of surname
• Ordering and condoning torture of said individuals, including simulated drowning ("waterboarding"), sleep deprivation, degradation of their persons by stripping, and other treatment banned by both the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
• Suspending the writ of habeas corpus, which has been the foundation of law in all civilized societies at least since the signing of the Magna Carta
• Spying on the private communications of law-abiding citizens without warrants having been obtained beforehand as required by law
• Refusing to comply with lawful requests for information from Congress, the press and government agencies, even under threat of contempt, citing "executive privilege"
• Defying portions of legislation he has signed by the use of "signing statements" citing his refusal to comply with those portions
• Ordering the invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation, with no real provocation, no actual threat to our shores or people and no end in sight, or even considered
• Willfully and knowingly misrepresented the need for said invasion, using falsified or "cooked" intelligence to justify attacking, i.e., linking Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorists, claims of Saddam's effort to obtain or already possessing weapons of mass destruction, etc.
• Failure to obey the will of the people who elected him, as expressed through their elected representatives in Congress, and end the unlawful and immoral occupation of Iraq and the continuing senseless sacrificing of human lives therein
• Arranging for the public exposure of a covert government agent in vindictive retaliation, not even for any action of hers, but for her husband's criticism of administration policy
• Ordering or condoning the mass firing of U.S. Attorneys whose records were without malfeasance, for the "crime" of refusing to ignore the law and its fair application in favor of his political agenda

These, my friends, are not the actions of a President, a wise and just leader elected democratically by and responsible to the people. These are the actions of a petty tyrant, a despot, a dictator, who believes in his own infallibility and rules by what he sees as divine right, who spits on the very Constitution he swore an oath to uphold.

This man must go—not in two years, not in two months, but right frakking NOW. It' is time, and long past it. Even if he is nearing the end of his term (and who's to say he won't try pulling some extra-Constitutional stunt to avoid having to leave office in January 2009?), he, and all those who abetted him, must be made to pay for the above enumerated high crimes and misdemeanors.

Yours for seeing Bush and Cheney perp-walked out of the White House in handcuffs,
TCC

Comments

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

I hate to say this, but....it's not worth it at this point.

In about 18 months, they'll be gone, and hopefully replaced by someone better. There might be investigations then, who knows? But an impeachment trial would be a *huge* distraction, force the expenditure of a lot of political capital, and probably still wouldn't result in an actual removal from office.

It isn't right, and it isn't fair. But the right thing to do right now is concentrate on mobilizing for the 2008 election.

[starmalachite.livejournal.com]

Sorry, Rob, but I have to disagree. Distraction? From *what*? What's more urgent than systematic and deliberate undermining of the rule of law? Even the Iraq cluster***k pales in comparison.

If malfeasance in office of this magnitude is allowed to slide merely because it's inconvenient to hold the parties to account, it's far more likely to happen again and soon. I understand your reasoning, but dammit, that's EXACTLY what the bastards are counting on. Eternal vigilance and all that.

Plus, even if impeaching them doesn't actually remove them from office, it gets the various charges firmly into the historical record. The whitewashing is already beginning: "Well if W is so bad, why did Clinton get indicted while he hasn't?" Not pressing charges lets their side control the spin.

If we tolerate such massive contempt for the Constitution and the Republic merely because it's easier that way, we will indeed have the government we deserve.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

*shrug* People of good conscience can disagree on these matters. I see very little go gain from an Impeachment hearing.

I'm afraid that politically, I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative. I'm a pragmatist, and I see little pragmatic value in starting that circus.

Sorry.

[starmalachite.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid that politically, I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative.

Ditto. I am, however, a constitutionalist.

I'm a pragmatist, and I see little pragmatic value in starting that circus.

So am I. But I see immense pragmatic value in deterring future W wannabees.

As for mobilizing for the the election, if the Democrats can't grow a spine on this of all issues, then they're not worth voting for. And I'd expect voter turnout to reflect that.

[starmalachite.livejournal.com]

Nicely indicted!

Friendly grammar geek amendments:

You've got a mismatch of tenses between "W has..." and "Imprisoning, Spying, Refusing", etc., throughout. They ought to be past participles.

Also, you use both Refusing and Refusal to begin bullet points.
How about changing Refusal to Failed? That word needs to be in there anyway.

Similarly, "Invasion" and "occupation" need to be verbed.

Just consistently make each bullet start with an -ed verb form and you've got it. For bullets this long, I prefer to close with periods, but the style guides vary on this.

It's a little long for an LTE, but you might want to submit it to your local paper's opinion page.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Grammar corrections noted and made. I assume "LTE" means "Letter to the Editor"?

Truly Gambiniesque

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

Mr. Cajun, that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out set of accusations.
...
Overruled!
---------------

but I think George Soros may have a position for you. :-)

Re: Truly Gambiniesque

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Um...to exactly which person named Gambini were you comparing me? I can only find one or two persons of that surname well known enough to be brought up for such a comparison, and neither seems germane. But thank you for the compliment.

Re: Truly Gambiniesque

[(Anonymous)]

:-) I was certain you'd get the reference. It's from "My Cousin Vinny" just when Pesci's character begins to get a grip on courtroom procedure and objects to the prosecutor bringing in the surprise mechanic witness.

No hidden meaning, just a joke. One of my favorite movie lines.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Supporting torture should be somewhere on the list.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

It won't happen.
Period.
The Congress and senate have refuse to pull Bush's teeth to this point.
They won't do it now.
The system is broke and neither party will change it, because both have too much invested in it's survival.

[ladyqkat.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. For the last six years I have seen group after group - some political, some private - call for his impeachment with nothing happening. Just more smoke and mirrors to cloud every issue out there.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

GIGO Politics

[sodyera.livejournal.com]

Back at Stu-POTUS's inauguration, I wrote the filk "Bushed Again", which projected several years into the future and accurately predicted the kind of assholery he would inflict upon us.

There's an ethical code in military academies that goes, "An officer does not lie, cheat or steal, nor does he tolerate anybody who does." Why hasn't the honour of those within the government compelled people to excise this character just based on his wholesale violations of that code? I know, money, power, the military-industrial complex. Goddess help us, POTUS Eisenhower was right, and the Nazis are running the synagogue.

If this were a computer system, I have no doubt that we'd have shut it down and built a new one. Only problem is we'll just get the same mess then as well (or poorly) as now. Maybe the next version of government can be built with better start-up documentation, some more internal filters and a better user interface. But we must remember that people will only get the government they deserve.

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

The list of indictments sounded very familiar to me, sort of like every 4th of July when NPR repeats this segment with each of their people reading a section of the Declaration of Independence.

The main point to deduce, when debating the utility and the impact on the future of a motion to impeach, is this:

Will starting impeachment proceedings ENSURE that W leaves office by January 2009, or will it give him a handy excuse to NOT go by then?