I am still fairly new at blogging. I have been, obviously, trying to gain some readership, but still do this, ultimately, for myself. I try to have fun, and I am always honest in what I post. What I write here is opinion, pure and simple, some people disagree – sometimes quite vehemently – with my opinions, and some concur. That 's pretty much a normal thing, too, isn't it?
One thing I'm not (although some of my commenters – vehemently – disagree) is an ideologue. I have some very conservative views on some subjects, and some views that are, most definitely, not. I'm also not a partisan in politics. I've criticized some of Bush's policies quite often. I criticize a lot of Democrats because I think they deserve it for a lot of various reasons.
Maybe I should clarify that. I am not a party partisan. I am, very much, an American partisan. I believe, for all it's faults, that this is a truly great country. I believe I was extremely lucky to have been born here. I also believe this is the best system of government the world has ever seen. Warts and all. A lot of what my less than polite commenters have accused me of is a failure to be able to distinguish between a defense of the man holding the office and a defense of the office itself.
That long intro aside, here's the point of the post. Today, a blogger, La Shawn Barber, who I have read for quite a long time, one I respect quite a lot and one I have linked before, asked if Bush should be impeached because he failed to secure the borders.
My answer is a most resounding "NO". Here's why. I absolutely detested Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as presidents. Not because of their party, because of their actions while in office. I voted to remove Carter from office (that worked) and to remove Clinton (that didn't). I thought Clinton was a dishonorable man because he did not resign when his crime (and it was a crime) was exposed. I thought Nixon did the honorable thing when he resigned rather than be impeached when his crime (and it was) was exposed.
But I never, for one second, thought EITHER man should have been impeached. Because, to me, America is more important than a politician. If we are going to go down the road of impeaching a president because he did not do exactly what we wanted on a single issue, we are going to fall. America will fall.
And the world will have lost it's best hope.
UPDATE: Thanks to Chez Diva for the link and for seeing where I'm coming from on this issue. Other people who are (more or less) taking at least somewhat the same position: Riehl World View and Pundit Guy.
Pingback: chez Diva » The “I” Word
Hey dude,
If your argument was what was being debated I would agree with you, howevah, what is being debated is…if the president surveilled American citizens pursuing their first amendment right to redress their governement, and then shared that information with a foreign power, would that constitute an impeachable offense.
Also, remember that the allegation is not merely sharing information about the Minutemen on the border, again allegedly, our government possibly collected data on Minutemen groups in the interior, such as on the Chicago Minutemen (where and what I am) and shared that info with the Mexican government.
If those things are true, and I don’t think it’s proven yet, but if those things are true I’ll tell you this. I’m going down to my local BP office and kicking some serious ass. We have already been attacked twice by radical socialist groups, I don’t want to have to fight my government physically as well.
Also, if those things are true, and let’s imagine for fun that the object of sharing that info would be allowing more illegals into this country (which considering the president’s deep love of illegals is sooo hard to imagine), then fuck yeah, that’s a hangin offense on my book.
Your rebuttal?
At this point there is an allegation. Based on one story, in a media where 1/3 of reporters admit to having published something they found out later was false. In which 50% of reporters admit to having seen someone in their newsroom doing something wrong or unethical within the last 5 years.
With no proof whatsoever that Bush ordered such a thing and that if it happened that it was not some stupid lower level bureaucrat who did it.
We denounce lefties who scream for the president’s head based on allegations.
How is what is happening now on the right different?
I knew I was going to take flak for posting this, by the way.
Just one nitpick,
Nixon resigned not to do the honorable thing, but because he was forced to do so. He faced certain impeachment and conviction. Just before his resignation, a head count showed Nixon had maybe 12 votes in the Senate against conviction Barry Goldwater was leaning toward conviction. (It’s in The Final Days).
Had the odds been reversed between the two presidents, it’s quite likely that Clinton would have resigned. Certainly, Nixon would not have resigned if he had a realistic chance of avoiding conviction.
I also respectfully dissent from your abhorrance of impeachment. I think you too closely associate the welfare of America with that of the president — whoever that president is. Our political system is, as it is said, a government of laws and not of men.
Impeachment is a political process foreseen in the Constitution. It marks the difference between a democracy and a monarchy. A monarch cannot be impeached. A really bad president will get the boot, and the 2/3 requirement for conviction is a safeguard against frivolous use of the process.
Impeachment is in the constitution for a reason. I don’t think it should be applied lightly. And it should be. You may or may not be right about Nixon, but that was my impression of it at the time.
Well written blog, but I actually do think Bush should be impeached. You could pick one of a number of topics.
The Iraq War was a violation of the U.N. Charter. One cannot pre-emptively invade another sovereign nation. It’s in the treaty we signed.
Torture is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Warrantless eavesdropping is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Please pick one or just impeach him for being completely incompetent.
The US had ample reason for going to war in accordance with the UN charter. Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire. That’s actually the only reason that was needed at all.
The stuff you refer to as “torture” doesn’t really rise to the standard of what I would consider torture.
An allegation is not grounds for impeachment. Please look around at the site – that has always been my position.
PoliticalCritic,
Perhaps you should read up on history before you accuse President Bush of prosecuting an unprovoked war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein consistently and boldly violated and disregarded each and every UN Resolution dating back to at least 1993 if not earlier. The final resolution (UN Resolution 1441) stipulated clear as day that Saddam confirm and allow inspections or face the consequences of military action.
As for your torture argument – talking points again. Also remember that we treat enemy combatants a million times better than they would EVER treat one of their prisoners or hostages. And let me also add terrorists aren’t given protection by the Geneva Convention – yet again your abhorrent use of talking points instead of facts.
Please get your history & facts right. Talking points don’t win arguments facts do. I am sadly seeing the democratic party being destroyed by irrational arguments, talking points (aka fact devoid propaganda) and invective attacks against President Bush and Republicans – that strategy will never win elections – unless you count handing the election over to your political opponent and that is what comments like yours and rants and raves from the Kos section of the blogosphere is doing.
So there is nothing wrong with attacking those who have violated UN resolutions (Israel)?
It’s always nice to see an American who supports the UN.
Nice try.
Border security is a deal breaker:
It’s the responsibility of the federal government to secure the borders. If our elected representatives refuse to do their jobs, they should be removed form office. That goes from the top down. The ball is in GWB’s court. He can step up, or step down.
Robert,
Read the resolutions with regards to Iraq. 1441 clearly states military action as a consequence. Point me to a resolution that threatens the same against Israel.
For what is worth – in response to your ?snarky? comment regarding the UN: I abhor them – they are a worthless entity that stands by and allows genocide in Kosovo, Bosnia, Dafur, Rwanda, Ivory Coast…the list goes on and on and on. They are a group of self-congratulatory, pompous diplomats who don’t really give a damn about human rights violations just ask the Cuban people and the Iraqi people. So there’s my opinion – the UN is worthless and you won’t find me kissing their “peace-keeping behinds”.
The only reason we as a nation even have to “defer” to the UN is because there are those in our government and society who are afraid to act on principle – they rather wait until hundreds of thousands are dead, millions are tortured and raped before they make a decision – and when they make a decision it is only a “valid” decision if it comes out of committee – with unanimous approval. So those few have dragged the rest of along for the ride into multilateral UN approved hell.
Hit him again CD, he’s reeling!