RE: Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/wa
> tergatedoc_9.htm

Er...is this a rebuttal of the Kendall/Mike takes in your mind? Or just
further info?

All of it seemed consistent with impeachment motivated by conduct or
events occuring before office holding.

"The emphasis has been on the significant effects of the conduct--
undermining the integrity of office, disregard of constitutional duties
and oath of office, arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental
process, adverse impact on the system of government."

While focusing on in office conduct, espeically the last bit seems
consistent with being modivated by prior conduct, if the effects are
current. Arguably, Bush's general past  conduct with regard to business
crime, given the current series of scandals and the way his polticial
actions are linked in, motivate serious accusation of undermining the
integrity of office and adverse impact on the system of
government. Arguably, not conclusively, of course. Impeaching him would
just be the first step, after all.

Impeachment, in general, is heavily political, rather than narrowly legal.

I write this as someone who was *distinctly* uncomforatable, nay, strongly
against the Starr stuff and the Clinton impeachment, at least the grounds
and way it was carried out. But I tend to fault it as a supremely stupid
political tactic in that context, rather than inherently "illegit". Well,
stupid, damaging, destructive, ugly, but not formally or informally
forbidden by "the rules". I kinda wish the democrats had the votes and
guts to impeach Bush just as a way to slap the repugs a bit. The
Republicans are just *so much* better at using these procedures for their
infighting. Well, rather so much more willing. They tend to backfire
(e.g., the shutting down of gov't, the impeachment, etc.)

Cheers,
Bijan.