In A Word: Impeach
Gerald Eisman
April 19, 2006
To make an accusation against. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
There has been an undercurrent lately of discontent that translates into thoughts of action against G. W. Bush, president of the United States. Though mainly privately, several members of the legislative branches of government have voiced the possibility of impeaching the president. Participants in political action committees have parroted these thoughts, often very openly and with feeling. The question that surfaces is, why, and on what grounds?
How do you impeach a man for making mistakes? When William Jefferson Clinton underwent impeachment proceedings for denying involvement with an intern (Monica Lewinsky), the result was a paralysis of governmental activity. The Republican Party, led by the conservative faction, successfully stifled productive governmental actions for more than a year while failing at their objective of getting Clinton out of office, a goal of theirs from the moment he sought office.
Now the opposition party thinks of resorting to the same tactics to remove George W. Bush from his position as leader of the free world. What would be gained? Bush may be inept, that's true, but were he to be removed from office, think of who we would have in his stead. As incapable as G. W. is, Vice President Dick Cheney can only be worse.
And on what grounds could George's opponents make such an attempt? It could be said that he's botched up the "war" on terror, but how do you make war on individual zealots who appear and disappear at will? Calling what we are doing to unearth terrorists a war is like naming our efforts to curb illegal substance abuse a "war" on drugs. Naming any action is merely the use of semantics to further one's personal objectives.
Might we attempt impeachment based on the lies and deception the administration used to get us involved in the Iraq war? Perhaps so, but after three years of fighting and loss of American lives, what would be gained? We would still be locked into the conflict without the possibility of exiting in the near future. Our lack of an exit strategy is the result of very poor planning and total lack of foresight. Neither are grounds for impeachment, just as appointing inept individuals to cabinet posts cannot be a cause.
When looking at the current state of the economy, what can be said for impeachment? The economy isn't weak by any means though its strengths are relative and spotty, fueled by extreme excesses in spending on the "war" that we needed like a hole in our collective heads. Yes, it's true that we have increased our national debt by trillions, but that fact isn't a reason for impeachment. The horrible increases in our debt is the result of ignorance of economic factors as well as the obvious flawed thinking, neither reasons for impeachment.
Can we justify the action by decrying the loss of some freedoms? Hardly, since those losses are acceptable to the public as allowed by the politicians elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives. Although members of the representative branch of government are obliged to act on the wishes of the general public, if they are not restrained by guidelines they are free to act as they please.
Should we attempt impeachment by virtue of services lost for the poor and middle class population in order to proffer "tax breaks" to the wealthy? Should we attempt the removal from office of G. W. because he tends to lean toward rewarding his contributors and cronies for their support of his policies? Can we hold out the maltreatment of the populace as a cause for removal from office? I think not.
Is there any justification for impeachment based on being flat out stubborn and stupid?
No matter how one views the situation, no single or group of facts can justify the act of impeachment. Still, there is one way to protect America from further abuse and mismanagement. The way is by using the ballot box in November. By voting out those members of congress who support the whims and wishes of an inept president, Americans will effectively curb the continual actions that are costing the country money, friends and prestige.
The opponents of our current administration, Democrats, Liberals, and thinking citizens who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and minds to think with can very effectively impeach G. W. by changing the complexion of congress. When faced with opposition that will not rubber-stamp foolish actions by one misinformed and self-willed individual, our president will be impeached without the paralysis of stymied government or the stigma of legal tomfoolery.
Liberals, Democrats, Independents, and thinking people of these United States, hear this! I strongly advocate impeachment but only at the polls on Election Day. First, the people must take back control of congress in 2006, then the presidency in 2008. The time for innuendo and undercurrent complaint has ended. The time for definitive action is now.
There has been an undercurrent lately of discontent that translates into thoughts of action against G. W. Bush, president of the United States. Though mainly privately, several members of the legislative branches of government have voiced the possibility of impeaching the president. Participants in political action committees have parroted these thoughts, often very openly and with feeling. The question that surfaces is, why, and on what grounds?
How do you impeach a man for making mistakes? When William Jefferson Clinton underwent impeachment proceedings for denying involvement with an intern (Monica Lewinsky), the result was a paralysis of governmental activity. The Republican Party, led by the conservative faction, successfully stifled productive governmental actions for more than a year while failing at their objective of getting Clinton out of office, a goal of theirs from the moment he sought office.
Now the opposition party thinks of resorting to the same tactics to remove George W. Bush from his position as leader of the free world. What would be gained? Bush may be inept, that's true, but were he to be removed from office, think of who we would have in his stead. As incapable as G. W. is, Vice President Dick Cheney can only be worse.
And on what grounds could George's opponents make such an attempt? It could be said that he's botched up the "war" on terror, but how do you make war on individual zealots who appear and disappear at will? Calling what we are doing to unearth terrorists a war is like naming our efforts to curb illegal substance abuse a "war" on drugs. Naming any action is merely the use of semantics to further one's personal objectives.
Might we attempt impeachment based on the lies and deception the administration used to get us involved in the Iraq war? Perhaps so, but after three years of fighting and loss of American lives, what would be gained? We would still be locked into the conflict without the possibility of exiting in the near future. Our lack of an exit strategy is the result of very poor planning and total lack of foresight. Neither are grounds for impeachment, just as appointing inept individuals to cabinet posts cannot be a cause.
When looking at the current state of the economy, what can be said for impeachment? The economy isn't weak by any means though its strengths are relative and spotty, fueled by extreme excesses in spending on the "war" that we needed like a hole in our collective heads. Yes, it's true that we have increased our national debt by trillions, but that fact isn't a reason for impeachment. The horrible increases in our debt is the result of ignorance of economic factors as well as the obvious flawed thinking, neither reasons for impeachment.
Can we justify the action by decrying the loss of some freedoms? Hardly, since those losses are acceptable to the public as allowed by the politicians elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives. Although members of the representative branch of government are obliged to act on the wishes of the general public, if they are not restrained by guidelines they are free to act as they please.
Should we attempt impeachment by virtue of services lost for the poor and middle class population in order to proffer "tax breaks" to the wealthy? Should we attempt the removal from office of G. W. because he tends to lean toward rewarding his contributors and cronies for their support of his policies? Can we hold out the maltreatment of the populace as a cause for removal from office? I think not.
Is there any justification for impeachment based on being flat out stubborn and stupid?
No matter how one views the situation, no single or group of facts can justify the act of impeachment. Still, there is one way to protect America from further abuse and mismanagement. The way is by using the ballot box in November. By voting out those members of congress who support the whims and wishes of an inept president, Americans will effectively curb the continual actions that are costing the country money, friends and prestige.
The opponents of our current administration, Democrats, Liberals, and thinking citizens who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and minds to think with can very effectively impeach G. W. by changing the complexion of congress. When faced with opposition that will not rubber-stamp foolish actions by one misinformed and self-willed individual, our president will be impeached without the paralysis of stymied government or the stigma of legal tomfoolery.
Liberals, Democrats, Independents, and thinking people of these United States, hear this! I strongly advocate impeachment but only at the polls on Election Day. First, the people must take back control of congress in 2006, then the presidency in 2008. The time for innuendo and undercurrent complaint has ended. The time for definitive action is now.
Print
Email
