More Fear of Impeachment Punditry

[paineinthearse]

David, don't you have a new year's party to go to? Blogging at 01:56. Really!

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6219/

More Fear of Impeachment Punditry
By davidswanson
Created 2006/01/01 - 01:56
By David Swanson

This is a new one: a column arguing that we should not impeach Bush because he's so dangerous, his crimes so serious, and the lies he's told so widespread. With friends like these...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gerald_r_051231_bush_impeachment_3a_go.htm

December 31, 2005

Bush Impeachment: Go for the Field goal

By Gerald Rellick

Recent calls for George Bush’s impeachment for his transgressions against the Constitution, the rule of law, and the citizens of the United States, have encountered opposition even from those who, while in agreement with the legal arguments, believe it’s futile to go down this path because of the enormous odds against success. Not only are both Houses of Congress controlled by Republicans, but many Democrats are reluctant to challenge the president on war-related issues while American troops are serving in harm’s way.

<snip>

The situation with George Bush and the war in Iraq is different. The chaos, death and devastation we witness there daily– two and half years after the invasion – is the direct result of deceit and fraud by the President of the United States. No reasonable person can conclude otherwise. So how can we argue that Bush is not deserving of impeachment? The honest answer is we can’t. But the agony of impeachment is such that many will find some form of rationalization and denial that will allow them to look away. The ironic truth is that it is easier to impeach a president when there is little at stake for the country. George Bush’s crimes are so serious that the prospect of impeachment frightens many, and justifiably so.

I see two major downsides to moving forward with impeachment for Bush’s most serious offenses, those related to the Iraq war. First, there are concerns about Bush’s mental stability. Rumors of Bush’s rants and raves with his staff are not comforting. Nor are rumors that he is drinking again. No less credible a writer than Alexander Cockburn felt comfortable in citing the drinking rumor in a recent column: “As Hitler did before him, Bush raves on about imagined victories. Spare a thought for the First Lady who has to endure his demented and possibly drunken harangues over supper. The word around Washington is that he's drinking again.” While Cockburn can be inflammatory, and Hitler analogies are always dicey, his words capture a sense that many in the country have about George Bush’s mental and emotional shortcomings.

<snip>

A second concern is the effect on troop morale and performance. It is one thing for Congress to debate the merits of the war, but quite another to impeach the president for his failings as commander in chief while U.S. troops are engaged in combat operations. At the uniformed military level, a change of commanders can be effected immediately. But not so with the president. Impeachment is a slow process. While investigation and inquiry could move forward (e.g., the Conyers House Resolution 635), formal impeachment would almost certainly have to be preceded by an agreed on plan between Congress and the executive branch for removal of troops from Iraq. But in the end, only the president can give this order, and Bush would be expected to play his commander in chief role to full advantage, as he’s done all along since 9/11.

So what are we to do? Allow George Bush to run roughshod over the Constitution and the law and continue abusing his office? No, something must be done to reign in a rogue president and to avoid changing the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches that would have serious long range consequences for the United States and the world.

more.........

Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D., worked in the defense sector of the aerospace industry for 22 years. He now teaches in the California Community College system. He can be reached at [e-mail].

Authors Website: http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/

:rofl:

Really!

[applegrove]

1. I still think that forcing George on the country for 3 more years will

kill neocondom forever.

[tavalon]

4. That would be the "Molly Ivins theory"

I can see some merit to that but on the other hand, I can't cotton to allowing what he's done to stand, even if it would keep the bird dog Americans from ever killing chickens again.

[applegrove]

5. Oh - I know it is hard.

[Flabbergasted]

2. The whole troop morale argument is crap...

There are a good # of these guys who never did or no longer believe in this war. They're there because its their job.

[countmyvote4real]

6. I have to agree.

If they is anything that will discourage their morale, it will be the false promises of the Defense Department to take care of them and their families if their service results in injury or death.

[Historic NY]

3. Interesting the International Criminal Court.......

imagine poor Georgey with nothing else to do but cut brush. Hey he loses SS protection after 10yrs.

[sandnsea]

7. OKay, somebody take away his meds

That was the most convoluted bit of gibberish I have ever ever read, and I've read a lot, a LOT, of gibberish.

Don't confront the crazy man who has the nukes because we're afraid of what the crazy man will do?

Let the crazy man who ought to be in front of the International Court continue to run the war so that the crazy man will still feel powerful because we don't want the troops to be upset about what the crazy man is doing that's going to cause them to die.

Is that about it?

:crazy:

[paineinthearse]

8. Thats my take

If anyone is interested, to register an account and post your response, go to

http://www.opednews.com/maxcomments/index.php?this=http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gerald_r_051231_bush_impeachment_3a_go.htm