Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
The problem isn't impeaching Bush. The problem is the precendent that impeaching Clinton left. Impeachment is now a purely political move that can be comitted on the executive whenever congress's winds turn against him. It no longer has anything to do with protecting the nation from a criminal president.
There's AMPLE grounds for impeachment proceedings against Bush. I'm not saying there's necessisarily grounds for conviction, but I'd say there's definitely enough evidence to move forward with proceedings. I could even see the 70% of the US who currently disapprove of him uniting under one banner--it could be a very unifying thing for the country. But first we have to deal with the political perception of impeachment.
|
While I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, ratbastid, I don't agree with the message. Impeaching a president has always been a highly politicized contest, and the most overt example isn't Clinton but Andrew Johnson. He was nearly removed from office because of his failure to agree with the Radical Republicans that controlled Congress after the Civil War. He preached a centerist approach to dealing with the South and was villified for it. Yes, Clinton went through much the same thing but in my opinion, Johnson had it worse.
I think that the major problem with impeaching Bush would be that there's no way in hell that the Far Right members of Congress would allow it. Like it or not, Bush is perceived as a wartime president, and the Right is going to give him special dispensation for it. Because of that perception, I think that any attempted impeachment would probably just throw more chum in the water, so to speak.