In Berkeley, it's difficult to travel more than a few blocks without seeing an "Impeach Bush" bumper sticker. And whenever I write a column about the 43rd President, I receive emails suggesting that the simplest solution to America's problems is his impeachment. Nonetheless, I'd never taken the possibility of impeachment seriously until this week, when I realized I've had enough: I want Dubya to go down.
The movement to impeach George W. Bush started around Labor Day, in 2002, when it become clear that he was determined to invade Iraq. In March 2003, it gathered momentum when many Americans joined marches and silent vigils to protest what we considered to be an ill-considered and dangerous action. Bush was enormously popular and many "blue" Americans felt we had lost our country: we couldn't understand why so many of our fellow citizens supported Dubya; or why they voted to reelect him in 2004. In those dark days, the impeachment movement seemed to be the last refuge of die-hard liberals: a defiant stance that had little hope of success.
Times changed: in 2006, Democrats took control of Congress and Bush's popularity rating sank to Nixonian depths. Meanwhile, evidence of his malfeasance exploded. Suddenly, even conservative Republicans were criticizing the President, calling for him to abandon his customary intractability and engage in real bipartisanship.
As the impeachment movement grew stronger, I resisted its call for several reasons. While I've never doubted that there are strong legal grounds for Bush's impeachment, I've been troubled by pragmatic considerations: if Dubya was removed from office, Dick Cheney would become President; impeachment proceedings would tie up the 110th Congress at a time when congressional energy needs to be focused on undoing Bush Administration mistakes –- such as ending the war in Iraq; and the impeachment process would further polarize a nation that has become far too adversarial and combative. When the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said that impeachment was "off the table," I agreed: it's one thing to be right and quite another thing to be effective, I thought.
My thinking changed after I read George Packer's magnificent commentary in the May 14th New Yorker Magazine http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/05/14/070514taco_talk_packer"> No Blame, No Shame. Packer asks the key question: "Why has it become impossible to admit a mistake in Washington and accept the consequences?" I pondered the fact that "under the Bush Administration no senior civilian official or military officer has been held responsible for what will probably turn out to be the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history." Then, I had an epiphany: I understood the "why" Packer asks about. The reason why Bush never admits a mistake or accepts consequences is because he believes he can get away with it. He was raised in a system of privilege where there's no accountability.
George Bush's unwillingness to be held personally responsible reflects on more than his Administration. It's a symptom of a deeper malaise that infects American politics and, sadly, much of American society. It's what I think of as the dual justice system. I first ran into this system many years ago when I was an idealistic probation officer in Orange County: courthouse habitués informed me that the defendants whose cases I handled were exclusively from the lower and middle class, because there was a different system of justice for the rich and powerful – patricians didn't go through the same process that plebeians did. Whether their crime was petty theft or murder, the elite received different treatment than they would have if they had been poor, or a person of color.
There are two systems of justice in the United States: one for the rich and powerful and a far different system for everyone else. Rob a bank and you go to prison; loot a savings and loan as an executive and you're likely to get a hefty fine, if that. Every day, we read about corporate executives who mismanaged their firms, caused the layoffs of thousands of poorly paid workers, and then danced away with millions of dollars of severance pay. We see what happened to the architects of the disaster in Iraq: Bremer, Franks, and Tenet got the "Presidential Medal of Freedom," Rice and Wolfowitz got promoted, as did the invasion supporters within the Pentagon. There was no accountability; they got away with it. So far.
That's why the impeachment of George W. Bush would send an important signal to other elected officials, and the power elite. It would be an indication that the American people are tired of Washington business-as-usual and serious about holding our leaders accountable for their actions. I'm not suggesting that the focus be exclusively on Bush, because I think his whole crew – Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, and Rumsfeld, among others – should go down, too. However, the logical place to start is with the guy at the top: the decider-in-chief.
Bob Dylan once wrote" "even the President of the United States sometimes has to stand naked." This is the time for the trappings of power to be stripped from George Bush. He needs to stand naked before the law and take full responsibility for the failures of his Administration. Impeach Dubya.
Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and Quaker actvist. He is particularly interested in progressive morality and writes frequently on the ethical aspects of political and social issues.
Is reconciliation more important than confrontation?
I agree with the writer, about impeachment. I see it from the standpoint of an E-warrior, particularly since the 04 election. Last November was a turning point for us, and I think many are anxious to proceed with remedying some of the major hurts Dubya perpetrated. So Kucinich's action against Cheney is significant. There is a need to keep the various caucuses in the House on the same page, and definitely a requirement to keep Pelosi's options fluent.
In my opinion, impeachment will get on the table, but to do so is to give equal attention to the dedicated peaceniks, advocates for strong military presence, and all the eager beavers salivating over the 08 outcome.
by
Margaret Bassett (25 articles, 1697 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 1021 comments)
on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 12:53:55 PM
and yet, the war will come to an end eventually becasue it must -- even though prolonging it will be very destructive. It is important to remove the destructive actions of Bush in the months to come. It's important to get the truth out. There are others.
But the most important reason is to define for the next century just who and what the United States is -- to ourselves and to the world. If the US lets this pass then we lose all credibility with the world, we prove that the terrorists are right that the US is the evil empire, and we saddle ourselves and our heirs with a deep abiding shame, and the ability to move ahead becasue we will be mired in the past: Germany has still not fully recovered from the Nazis -- and neither have it's victims, the Jews and specifically Israel. Israel is like the abused child who grows up to become an abuser -- and the Iraqis (and Muslim world) may well become the new tyrants and fascists of the new century in reaction to it's abuse by the US if the problem is not resolved and no reconciliation occurs. We already see some faint glimmerings of this with the strongly defensive stances Iran takes under the cloud of threat of destruction, and we saw it with North Korea and it's efforts to get a nuclear weapon. To not impeach is to tell the world and ourselves that what has been done was OK, and will happen again -- and that sets the entire world -- and ourselves -- against us.
One can say we should impeach because "it is the right thing to do", but the translation of that principle is terms of blowback, karma, self-loathing, and ultimately self-destruction.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 5:43:33 PM
FLOOD GOD DAMN CONGRESS WITH LETTERS DEMANDING IMPEACHMENT OF ALL WHO ARE A THREAT TO OUR NATION SUCH AS BUSH, CHENEY, GONZALES, RICE, ETC.... THEY ARE THE THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY. THEY ARE THE VERY NIGHTMARE WE NEVER DEAM OF.
IF YOU THINK MAIN STREAM MEDIA IS GOING TO HELP US... WAKE UP!
IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION... GET RID OF THE SOB'S
ALL WHO TRAMPLE ON THE CONSITUTION. SO WATCH OUT HILARY!
by
Frank gr (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 48 comments)
on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 11:50:52 PM
So ya'll say your serious about Impeachment of Liar in Chief War Criminal George W Bush and Vice War Criminal Deranged Draft Dodger Trickey Dickey Cheney do you? So, alright go force the G Damn Yellow Coward Gutless Two Face Crooked Corrupt Sell Out Traitor Democrats to DUMP that Idiot Phony Bush & Cheney Protector Sell Out Democrat Speaker Madame Nutty Nancy Pelosi and her Band of Stooges Steny Cockroach Hoyer,John Conyers,and Harmless Harry Reid to Make It Happen Or Just Shut Up! As long as Nutty Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and The Cockroach Steny Hoyer and that crooked scam artist scumbag John Conyers are running the show there will be no Impeachment so get rid of them and watch Impeachment happen so fast your head will spin!
by
Ralph (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments)
on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 1:17:00 AM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
