Impeachment should not be off the table

I’m inspired by mealy-mouthed, weak-willed Nancy Pelosi as well as by Shakespeare’s Sister’s conversation with Evan Bayh, whose hat is hovering over the Presidential ring in a pre-tossed state.

Shakes asked Bayh about Pelosi and didn’t get a progressive-heart-warming answer:

He went on to say that the American people didn’t like it when the Republican Congress went after Clinton when they should have been paying attention to jobs and the economy and shit, and there was a backlash, and the Dems won seats during midterms—and if the Dems tried to impeach Bush, the same thing would happen, because it would be viewed as motivated by a vendetta.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Let’s compare.

  • Clinton was wildly popular at the time of his impeachment
    George W. Bush is almost amazingly unpopular
  • Clinton was hounded relentlessly until finally a straw was grasped that could be used for impeachment
    With Bush, there are plenty of questionable activities just sitting there that have yet to be investigated
  • Clinton was impeach for reasons having nothing to do with being President (anyone can get a blow job)
    Bush’s misfeasance and malfeasance are directly related to his Presidency (only a President can start a war)
  • Clinton was impeached for reasons that are minor, fundamentally harmless, and that most Americans consider private.
    Bush has committed acts that affect (and cost) American lives, and acts that affect the Constitution directly.

I’m not saying impeach now; I’m saying investigate and be open to the possibility that investigation might lead to impeachment. Investigation, after all, is Congress’s job, and they’ve been napping on the country’s time.

6 comments

  1. Good summation – the cases against Bush & Clinton were completely different, and the American people will react to them differently.

    In any case, should one’s trial and punishment for crimes depend upon how popular the criminal is? I don’t think so.

  2. deblipp says:

    More importantly, should we avoid the possibility of trial because it is unpleasant?

  3. More importantly, should we avoid the possibility of trial because it is unpleasant?

    I hear that too much. “Another impeachment trial would be bad for America.”

    Like having Bush as president isn’t worse by several orders of magnitude? Not only for what he has done, is doing, and will do, but for the precedent it sets for future presidents – “This is how much you can do, and still get away with it.”

    We need to put our foot down: “No, you CAN’T do that, and if you do, we will impeach you.”

  4. Dan says:

    Impeachment is not enough,Bush and friends should also be handed over to the International War Crimes tribunal for trial.

  5. deblipp says:

    I’m okay with working for the possible first, Dan. 🙂

  6. Dan says:

    In politics just about anything is possible but Iimpeacment does come first.