| That's not to say that folks who opposed a Clinton impeachment didn't do so out of politics, or those that support the impeachment of Bush likewise do so out of political motives. But if you look at the two cases, the first was over nothing and plainly injurious to the political health of the nation, and the latter is in response to unconstitutional and impeachable offenses that proved injurious to the political, social, and physical health of our nation.
The list of President Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors can begin with the manufacture of evidence to justify the Iraq War. Or for crimes against humanity for approving the use of kidnapping and torture in violation of international agreements. Or for spying on his own people without warrant. Oh, and data mining, too. Illegal. Or for commuting Scooter Libby's jail sentence, contrary to the desire of the Republican-appointed attorney who prosecuted him, or the Republican-appointed judge who sentenced him -- one of the few actions, interestingly enough, singled out by the Constitution's framers thought warranted impeachment:
"In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded:
"[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . .
"Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."
If you compare Nixon to Bush, Bush has much more reason to lose his office than Nixon did.
In short, impeachment was written into the Constitution for presidents like George W. Bush.
Bill Clinton lied about a perfectly legal blowjob.
But what matters now is politics -- at least to the Senators who would decide Bush's fate. You see, Montana Liberty's superficial view of an impeachment of Bush is exactly how it would be spun. It's just revenge for Clinton! would shout the pundits. It's pure politics! And that's why it won't happen. It won't happen because there aren't enough courageous Senators in Congress to do the right thing.
That's the grand irony of the Clinton impeachment proceedings. They went after a guy for next to nothing, and made it nearly impossible to get the next president, who has done terrible things.
Montana Liberty talked about "Historian's ridicule," which will no doubt be earned by this present Congress. We already know fairly well how Bush II will be viewed in History. And Congress will rank low, too. But not for pursuing impeachment, but for avoiding it.
But here's the thing: I'm not hot for impeachment, either, because the modern-day GOP doesn't have many, if any, independent-minded and morally courageous representatives in the Senate. Worse, most of them knowingly went along, even abetted, the worst of the Bush administration -- torture, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping. So, no, I don't think impeachment would succeed, even if Bush has deserved it. |
