Monday, December 26, 2005


In my last post, I briefly discussed the fact that some people -- not many, but some -- are starting to use the word "impeach" in connection with George W. Bush.

Who are these terrist-sympathizin', Murka-hatin' librul bassards who dare defy Lord God King George-n-Dick?

1. Barron's (a part of the Wall Street Journal empire) (via MyDD):
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

2. U.S. Representative John Conyers (D-MI):

There is at least a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violate a number of federal laws, including (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.

3. U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA):

How can the President of the United States -- the highest elected official in our land, a leader who swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" -- so egregiously and repeatedly violate our most basic civil liberties?

4. The New York Observer:
There are politicians in both parties who know that Mr. Bush's trespasses cannot be allowed to stand. Only a bipartisan coalition can restrain and, if necessary, remove him. It is to be hoped that he steps back before such a struggle becomes inevitable.

5. Jonathan Turley, Law Professor, George Washington University:
When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.

6. Norman Ornstein of the ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute:
"I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

7. Bruce Fein of the even more conservative Federalist Society (they're the ones pushing Alito), writing in the Moonie Times:
President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses.

87% of the respondents to an MSNBC poll.

Several bloggers (and other writers) have pointed out that what Bush has done is much worse than Clinton's lying about his sexual escapades.

Remember, the right-wingers claimed that Clinton's weaselling on what constituted "sexual activty" -- and the subsequent furor when it became obvious he lied -- rendered Clinton unfit to lead the country. Does it not make sense that Bush's lies -- which, after all, are directly responsible for the deaths of over 2000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of others (coalition forces, Iraqis, and so on) -- should be held to at least the same standard?

Sure, the wingnuts are going to claim that there is no comparing the two situations. And they're right, for once.

What Clinton did was wrong.

What Bush did, and continues to to do, is illegal, evil... and impeachable.

No comments:

Post a Comment