I’ve been rattling this around in my head for a while now, and Bush’s reportedly tepid response to the Iraq Commission’s report–and his recent comparing of himself to Harry Truman–has forced me to the conclusion that, yes, he should be impeached.
Now the response one often hears as to why this is a bad idea is that it automatically means: President Cheney.
I disagree.
History shows that impeachment of a president does not automatically mean power devolves onto the vice-president. Impeachment is merely the first of two stages required to remove someone from office. Two presidents have been impeached in our history; in neither instance did the vice-president wind up as commander-in-chief.
I don’t think he needs to be impeached to be removed from office. I think he needs to be impeached to get his attention. Bush has ceased worrying about how his policies are impacting upon our soldiers and their families and the people of Iraq and–let’s face it–the global community, in terms of their own interests and their relationships with us. His major concern appears to be about his legacy and his place in history. If he thinks his place in history will be as the first president to be impeached and removed, that might be the cold dash of water in the face he needs.
Besides, it’s only just: If a president can be impeached over getting a bløw jøb from one person, certainly a president can be impeached over giving a screw job to 250 million people.
To paraphrase “Heroes”–“Impeach the President; Save the World.”
PAD
• 
Recent Comments