Elphaba, this was a very interesting read. I found two things to be somewhat odd about the article, though.
1. de la Vega goes to great lengths detailing the actual process of impeachment and removal from office. This is odd because there has not yet even been an investigation to see whether any of Bush's actions might potentially be impeachable. Thus, this article is severely jumping the gun in outlining the route to remove the President from office. Above all else, I see de la Vega's musings as
wishful thinking. Her credibility suffers in my eyes as a result.
2. Nowhere in the article is the Constitution quoted. Additionally, the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not appear. You would think that, in an article about the grounds for impeaching the President, the Constitutional parameters for the procedure would be quoted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elizabeth de la Vega
The evidence shows, then, that from early 2002 to at least March 2003, the President and his aides conspired to defraud the United States by intentionally misrepresenting intelligence about Iraq to persuade Congress to authorize force, thereby interfering with Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations, all of which violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
To what standards should we hold our government officials? Certainly standards as high as those Bush articulated for corporate officials. Higher, one would think. The President and Vice President and their appointees take an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. If they fail to leave their campaign tactics and deceits behind - if they use the Oval Office to trick the public and Congress into supporting a war - we must hold them accountable. It's not a question of politics. It's a question of law.
|
Here, de la Vega is deliberately implying that violating the law mentioned above should be grounds for impeachment. What she fails to say, however, is that indictable offenses and impeachable offenses are not the same thing. There are certainly many that fall into both categories. However, simply saying that you believe there is sufficient evidence to charge George Bush with a crime does not prove that there is a reason to impeach him.
The only "question of law" here is whether any of Bush's actions were "high crimes and misdemeanors". Of course, de la Vega neglects to even ask this question, which is somewhat disturbing...