Editorial: Impeachment not an option for Bush : The University Daily Kansan

Editorial: Impeachment not an option for Bush

Unhappy constituents should look to the polls for a new leader.

KANSAN

Tuesday, September 18th, 2007

An online poll conducted by MSNBC reveals that 89 percent of voters believe, “between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting [President Bush] on trial.” Regardless of the situation in Iraq, the impeachment of President Bush at this point would do little to improve either the situation in Iraq or in America.”

Impeachment is reserved for those who commit high crimes and misdemeanors. It is a way of holding the president accountable for a specific crime, and there is a certain difficulty in specifying what “secret spying” and “deceptions leading to war” are and just what laws they break (former President Bill Clinton comes to mind; he committed perjury and was impeached by the House). The impeachment process is not a means to remove an unpopular leader (see Andrew Johnson’s presidency), but rather a means of holding leaders accountable for their actions. It is an exercise in constitutional authority and should never be a revenge tactic.

And if Americans don’t like Cheney, should the House impeach him too?

President’s Bush’s popularity aside, he has yet to be charged with any impeachable offense.

564, 166 responses have been recorded for the MSNBC online poll, (just 350,000 fewer hits than YouTube’s “Coach Mark Mangino explodes” video) and it’s problematic to see that 89 percent of those participants are for the removal of Bush but are prepared for a Cheney-run White House.

And if Americans don’t like Cheney, should the House impeach him too?

What’s worse is that most voters probably didn’t take the time to think past Bush, because if they did, 89 percent are, by extension, comfortable with a 2008 election featuring an incumbent Republican candidate, even though Cheney has said that there is no way he would accept the bid for a presidential nomination.

Not only would impeachment be a long and drawn-out process (remember former President Clinton’s own lengthy and expensive trial), but also it would only serve to further divide the country along partisan lines and waste yet more tax money on legal fees. There is a time to judge the effectiveness of elected leaders, and it’s in November.

Discussion

All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.

linguo_the_grammar_robot

18 September 2007

at 7:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

clinton did not commit perjury

llama726

18 September 2007

at 9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

There is no point to go after Bush, or to make him a martyr for the neoconservative movement. Right now, he's a lame duck anyway. No one in his own party wants to be close to him, because it will drag them down, and no one from the other side of the aisle really wants to have anything to do with him, being as he's disregarded their opinions for a while now.

llama726

18 September 2007

at 10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

And before someone freaks out on me for using the word "martyr," I just mean it will renew their resolve and probably encourage them to try to impeach every remotely liberal president from here on out.

Hans

18 September 2007

at 4:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Bush is guilty of high crimes, specifically 9/11. He didn't think it up, but he signed off on the plan. There's no way the towers could have spontaneously exploded all the way to the basements without some help, especially Building 7. There are so many pieces of evidence - Bush's brother and cousin working security at WTC, molten steel in the rubble of dust and ash, massive steel beams blown hundreds of feet sideways into adjacent buildings, all the eyewitness accounts of explosions, Secret Service policies ignored under attack, our air defense ordered to stand down (and multiple hijacking exercises taking place that day, to add confusion), no evidence of a plane at the Pentagon, videos confiscated, WTC steel shipped to Asia immediately without investigation... Bush has yet to be charged, and probably never will. But if our democracy was truly functional he would.

Brandon_Minster

19 September 2007

at 1:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Clinton agreed to being disbarred to avoid federal perjury charges.

Shamus1970

19 September 2007

at 2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

We need to throw a tea party in Washington, with oil maybe. When do we answer a call to arms, to take back our white house? Who will make the call? I'll vote for and fight right along side that man or woman who finally does. Bush and Cheney will go down as putting the Smack down on our Constitution if no one makes a place setting for Impeachment at the table. I'm a gulf war veteran, if fighting and dying for oil is so worth our troops blood, then why are we not declaring a state of emergence here and starting gas rations, until we fight a green alternative to oil? Maybe a little inconvenience on everyone will press the issue forward on the inconvenient truth that our president and vice president are guilt of treason, and should be turned over to a international war crimes court for punishment. It's a crying shame, and I fear that our forefathers dream of the constitution may well fall apart if we to not serve justice for All on the crimes & offenses again our most precious and Inalienable doctrine by Bush and Cheney. The level of their offense is no less then that of High treason. Yea go on call me a wacko vet with mental problems, you'd be right on half of that, but I'm not wacko, just pissed off!

sexingthecherry

19 September 2007

at 7:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Clinton wasn't facing perjury charges at all. Perjury is a lie related to the crime at hand--Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. Clinton wasn't convicted of any crime.

Brandon_Minster

25 September 2007

at 2:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Clinton lied about whether he has a pattern of sexual relations with subordinates who were then intimidated or bribed into denying the truth. By bribing Monica Lewinsky to deny that, he undermined Paula Jones's lawsuit, which is suborning perjury, which is a crime. When questioned under oath about that crime he lied, which is perjury, which is a crime.

Share your 2¢

Requires free registration.