Rebuttals to Reasons NOT to Impeach

updated Jan 27, 2008

Much has been written about WHY to impeach. But even among people who believe Bush and Cheney lied or intentionally misled the congress about WMDs and reasons to go to war, even among people people who believe that Bush and Cheney have treasonously violated laws and betrayed the constitution, some people don’t believe there should be impeachment proceedings.  I’ve listed, below, some of the  most common objections to impeachment, with rebuttals to them.

It is important to keep in mind that impeachment is a constitutional tool, primarily to be used, in the early stages for hearings and investigations. Most in congress seem to think of impeachment focusing on the Senate impeachment trial, ignoring history.

Keep in mind that Richard Nixon never ended up being tried by the Senate. After hearings exposed the levels of lawbreaking and corruption, a group of Senate Republicans took “the walk” to the White House to tell Nixon he had to go, that if he didn’t, they were ready to remove him. Of course, that was after Agnew had been pushed to resign, with hearings that disclosed enough to show how dirty he was.

This is the scenario that will unfold for the Bush/Cheney administration. Judiciary committee impeachment hearings will disclose enough about Cheney so he will resign. Then hearings on Bush will reveal enough dirt so the GOP leaders will cut their losses at some point, when supporting Dubya no longer seems at all viable, when the GOP brand will be close to going down the toilet, and they’ll take “the walk” to visit George to tell him he has to quit or they will side with the Dems and remove him.

Bottom line-- impeachment will never reach the Senate.

But for these things to happen, Nancy Pelosi has to put impeachment back on the table and let John Conyers, head of the house judiciary committee, do the job he’s ready to do—start impeachment investigations of Cheney and Bush. It worked to get rid of Gonzales. It will work for Cheney, then Bush too.

Here are some common arguments against impeachment, with their rebuttals. Frankly, if the Dems fail to impeach, and they fail to end the war, and they let Bush’s disastrous economic policies and his massive war spending continue, the USA will be in even worst trouble than the horrific mortgage/ housing and dollar crash and credit disaster we are already in.

Common Arguments Against Impeachments & Their Rebuttals
1- That will give us Cheney as president.

Well, of course, we have to impeach Cheney first, but we can and should be INVESTIGATING both.  Once Cheney investigations start, the VP will get a note from the Doctor. He’ll try to pull the plug on hearings by resigning with his heart problems as the explanation.

2-Not enough time. Cheney and Bush will be out of office in 12 months. Why bother?

Lots of reasons. They committed crimes. Investigations will turn up more ugly dirt. Investigations will turn up new, fresh witnesses who will roll over and testify against Cheney and Bush. It’s not about timely convenience. It’s about the congress obeying their oath to uphold and defend the constitution—which Bush and Cheney have treasonously violated.  

3- . Bush and Cheney have broken no laws

Bush and his defenders argue that as Commander-in-Chief, Bush and his designate Cheney have not violated any laws.  The counter argument:  The violation of Geneva Convention principles would be a breaking of U. S. law since the United States has signed "a treaty" banning torture and other mistreatment of detainees.  International Treaties become U. S. Law and may not be negated by the President.  Justice Bryer 9 Oct 2007. And just because Bush issues a signing statement—actually, over 1000—doesn’t mean he is right, that he doesn’t have to follow the laws the congress has passed.

4- The Dems will be accused of wasting time.

 1  |  2