December 8th, 2006
The new incoming Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, has made it abundantly clear that Bush’s impeachment is off the table. Her reasoning and the reasoning of many close political observers is obvious: Democrats have only 2007 to solidify their electoral gains by demonstrating that they, in fact, have a practical agenda to solve the many problems catastrophes that Republicans have left behind. Moreover, establishment Washington and pary insiders have convinced elected Democrats that the American public would not tolerate impeachment at this time. Frankly, I’m sympathetic to the practical and "rational" reasons against impeachment: Democrats will have a lot on their plate over the next year and, of course, media pundits and establishment Washington would jump down their throats if they got wind that Democrats were seriously considering Bush’s impeachment.
And then… I come across items like this, and think, Damn it, he’s right:
Impeachment: you think the world is not watching?
So it’s not politically convenient to try to impeach?
So there will be no price paid for being the worst president ever, apart for the promise of the judgement of history?
So Democrats also think it’s okay to go invade another country, to get several hundred thousand of its inhabitants killed, to proudly practice and promote torture around the world, to tear up the Geneva Conventions and a whole load of international treaties, and to go grab random foreigners around the world to put them in Guantanamo and throw away the key?
So not only was Bush reelected with a real majority, but the opposition essentially says that what he did is not so profoundly illegal that it deserves to be duly sanctioned?
Way to go.
The world is watching. And it will not forget. Our current leaders may be cowards, but they won’t always be there. Haven’t you noticed how being anti-American makes you a popular politician and makes you win elections around the world?
Fear will not be enough when the whole world is convinced that America will not correct its current ways, and that the problem is not just the current administration.
December 28th, 2005
I came across the original post over at DailyKos.com. The Bulldog Manifesto asks:
Back when former President Clinton was being impeached, many of our current Congressmen and Senators were involved in the process. Men like Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and Henry Hyde, among others, came out strongly in support of the impeachment of Clinton based upon the highest standard of “rule of law.”
Today, as impeachment makes its way back into the American vernacular, this time related to George W. Bush, the following quotes become quite illuminating.
While reading them, perhaps ask yourself, ‘What happened to the “rule of law?”
The Bulldog then provides us with these gems:
What Did They Say When Clinton Was Being Impeached?
Tom Delay (R-TX):
“This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.
No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That�s the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.”
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.):
“I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it’s not a vengeful one, it’s not vindictive, and it’s not craven. It’s just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. … as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit.
The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door.”
James Sensenbrenner: (R-WI):
“What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law, will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations. I want those parents who ask me the questions, to be able to tell their children that even if you are president of the United States, if you lie when sworn “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” you will face the consequences of that action, even when you don’t accept the responsibility for them.”
Chuck Hagel (R-NB):
“There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America–one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?”
Bill Frist (R-TN):
“I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail.”
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas):
“When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority — for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator — had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: “The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States.”
You can find the Bulldog’s blog here: http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/
