Friday, July 13, 2007

The Costs Of Impeachment

You know, there was a time I thought the GOP was mean-spirited and seething with anger and hostility - all over the fact that their candidates didn't win an election. I argued with many Republicans at that time, over the way they went after Clinton. Whether someone liked him or not, I still felt there was no reason to impeach him, especially because there was not enough votes to remove him. And even though the charge was perjury, taking it forward just for show was not a valid reason to tie up the nation's business in a meaningless action. But more importantly, I thought his sex-life was something that was not important enough to make an issue of, to begin with. In short, it simply was not wise to blow $12 million and waste months on the people's nickel, on what turned out to be consensual sex.

With that said, let's fast forward to today.

We now know, we can count Sen. Barbara Boxer along with joining the irrational Bush haters and calling for the impeachment process to begin. And so, once and again, we may see millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, blown away, in order to (ab)use a process, for nothing more than partisan political reasons. And the reason for my thinking this way is simple. They know they do not have a true case for anything that is impeachable.

The infamous sentence commutation?

Where did the President break the law? History already bears out the use of the pardon as a reward. No crime committed, long story short, problem solved. Next.

Starting a war?

How quickly some of us forget who advocated for it, supported it, and voted for it. The resolution that was passed, was passed for the specific purpose of authorizing the President to use force. He was given permission to do it, by Congress. Congress said he could. No crime.

Lying to start a war?

Where's the proof? Where's the crime, even if he did. He wasn't under oath. No perjury, no crime, absent solid proof. Many Democrats believed that the guy had WMDs, they had been making speeches and even bombed them for effect, when it was necessary to divert attention. It was very much believed widely, by many officials on both sides of the aisle, for the entire time Clinton and Gore was in office. What? Now they want take-backs? Do overs?

Taking civil rights away?

Listening to phone calls of those suspected of being involved with terrorist organizations would have been done, had FDR been president. He suspended his share of civil rights along the way during WWII, namely those of Japanese-Americans. His administration certainly restricted the press, and generally did many things that normally would not have been done had there not been people that were trying to harm the nation in some way. In fact, you'd have a hard time persuading me to believe that HST, JFK, and LBJ would not have done the same thing, as well. Nope, precedent has been set for this long ago. Nothing there. Not a crime.

For outing Valerie Plame?

Earth to moon, earth to moon. Bush didn't do leak her name. Someone under him did it. Bush can't be legally charged with something, he didn't actively do. There's a whole list of names that were embroiled in this whole stinking mess, to choose from. Libby was charged and convicted, but to date no one else has been tried. And if you think there is enough legal evidence to prove that Bush or Cheney gave the order, you'd have to think again. There just isn't. Even if either did give the order, it cannot be proven unless you go after the ones that actually did it and cut them deals to testify against the President. So far, that hasn't happened.

So meanwhile, it's now July and Congress hasn't passed much of anything to benefit the American people. In short, they haven't done a damned thing to earn their salaries this year. But rest assured, they sure have been fixated on bringing down another President, for payback purposes.

Think about this for a moment. One can make the ethical argument, one can make the moral argument. And they can do it (all day long) in their little sound bites, their posturing moments, and their campaign speeches. But that is not enough to legally bring any charges against Mr. Bush. With things as they are at present, there just is no good sensible or reasonable case that can be made, to tie up the legislative process for the period of the upcoming campaign.

After you have thought about that, then, let's take a trip down memory lane and remember some things.

In my lifetime I have seen impeachment hearings against two Presidents. The Democrats drew first blood.

In the case of Nixon, one can argue there was good cause or reason to set a standard. And while I think the only reason he got caught was the fact that he made too many enemies along the way, he was to blame for much of his trouble, for covering it up.

Still freshly empowered (to the point of delusion) over that victory, the Dems had hoped to perform this again with Reagan, in the Iran-Contra affair. It didn't lead to impeachment, but it was looked at as a possibility, if (and only if) North or Poindexter would have implicated the President for a deal. Do not think for one moment that it wasn't looked at and hoped for, despite the fact it didn't happen.

Then, it was the GOP's turn with Clinton. (SEE: Opening Paragraph)

Now it's time for payback on the payback? It's very much sounding like it is.

Where will it all end? Is this what we really deserve? I know we always say we get the government we deserve, but why do we insist on letting these clowns keep wasting taxpayer money so they can spend the entirety of their terms getting something on someone, just because someone does not like or agree with him/her? Why do we still keep voting for them?

At this rate, we won't need to worry about the Jihadists. We have an entity that has taken on the form of an out-of-control beast, which is also self-serving, corrupt, and guilty of the same hypocrisy, as those they try to smear. We seem to have the ability to destroy ourselves slowly and painfully.

So, you know what? When I see all of this happening day after day, week after week, I often think of something:

When some future civilization's archeologists' dig up the rubble and ruins of Washington DC, I highly suspect they will all be astonished at what they are likely to find. There will be many skeletons found in their natural state and they will all be found, pointing their fingers.


A.C. McCloud said...

They won't impeach. It would be a death knell for the Dems. They've only got to make it seem like they will until about September, when the primary stuff starts heating up. Bush is worth a lot more in office than frog-marched.

All of this says a lot about our present society, what with a war waging on and such.

LASunsett said...


//They won't impeach. It would be a death knell for the Dems. They've only got to make it seem like they will until about September, when the primary stuff starts heating up. Bush is worth a lot more in office than frog-marched.//

Well, I will say that you may be right. But if they beat the war drums and do not attack, they run a huge risk of losing support from the far-left Sheehan types, who believed the Dems would actually end the war the instant they assumed control. Those people feel like they were lied to and used for the sole purpose of gaining power.

And you know what? They were.

Anyway, I hope you are right. We do not need any more damage done to the office.

However, I will say this:

If it can be proven that Bush committed a high crime or misdemeanor worthy of impeachment, I would be calling for his head too. But based on all the accusations we have heard so far, that simply isn't the case. All we hear are irrational accusations, completely devoid of any substantive evidence.