OpEdNews - Diary: Ron Paul on impeachment

October 11, 2007 at 22:32:35 Permalink
Ron Paul on impeachment

Diary Entry by Mark Anderson (about the author)

SAVE AS FAVORITE

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

Why Ron Paul shouldn't be judged negatively for not actively supporting impeachment right now.

::::::::

When Congressman Ron Paul first announced his intention to run for President, he was asked about his stance on impeaching President George W. Bush.

Here is the clip of the question and answer:

I know a lot of people on this forum have expressed their view that this is a reason they couldn't support Dr. Ron Paul. I myself would like to see something by way of impeachment happen, and I have been calling for this since 2002.

However, I think it would be unfair to judge Dr. Ron Paul on this position alone, without properly coalescing all facts and information into a more meaningful assay. Dr. Ron Paul is seeking the nomination of the Republican Party. It would be politically untenable to actively pursue impeachment against the sitting President of his own party.

That said, I am not excusing decisions based upon what is political expedient. However, getting back to what I was saying, if Dr. Ron Paul actively supported impeachment, he wouldn't have been in any of the debates, and none of his ideas or his message of peace and freedom would have been heard by anybody. Therefore, a greater good I believe is served by him taking the position that he does.

Now, I believe we should also be fair enough to juxtapose Dr. Ron Paul with other candidates and other members of Congress. Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, being the political hack that she is would play the role of gatekeeper by trying to suppress a move to impeach Bush. Does Hillary Clinton support impeachment, or are the Clintons and Bushes not in bed with one another?

The other thing is that, while impeachment is definitely desirable, it is not a solution in and of itself. It is on this fact that makes Dr. Ron Paul such a great person, as he understands a lot of the problems and actually works to fix them with proper solutions. Now, contrast that with what the vast majority of Congressmen from both major parties are doing, and you will realize that not only is Ron Paul far, far superior to most Democrats, but that the problem isn't just in the White House, but in the Congress which has given Bush his money and functioned as Bush's enabler. In other words: if we are going to use the impeachment standard to judge Ron Paul, then impeachment should not only be of President Bush himself, but the vast majority of Congress (except for people such as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) needs to be impeached as well.

Ron Paul has been a tireless advocate of peace and freedom. Also, take Dr. Ron Paul's answer, in which he shows his objectivity by supporting fact-finding investigations and letting the facts lead wherever they may lead, and then juxtapose it with Mike Gravel's answer on impeachment.

Here is Mike Gravel's answer on the impeachment question, and it starts at about 3:55 (backwards count is at 4:30) into the video:

I have a lot of respect for Mike Gravel, as I am sure many other people on this forum do as well. Again, I understand his position. We have a President who is weakened by scandal after scandal, but before we could even contemplate impeachment we have to do something about his enablers in the Congress, of which both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul do not belong.

Juxtapose Ron Paul's answer with Mike Gravel's, and Ron Paul seems to be far more objective in this regard. I say all of this only to emphasize the point that if you are going to throw Ron Paul out the door because of this issue, then you would need to do the same for even Mike Gravel. Dennis Kucinich endorsed John Kerry in 2004, so he isn't exactly a purist. My point, then, is that we should not throw the babies out with the bathwater. If there is a true, pro peace and freedom candidate, we should get behind them. In abstract, Ron Paul is a good man, and people shouldn't dismiss him over this issue.

Mark served for four years on active duty in the Marine Corps infantry, and was a candidate for a municipal office in 2002. Mark has helped raise awareness of military and veterans' issues, by establishing more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.