A small update and expansion

[solarbird]

For a couple of people who had been asking, I posted the replies I feel are appropriate to my assertion that the impeachment of President Bush is now mandatory. I want to make something else clear, as well: it's not just that I think President Bush should be impeached; it's that I feel he must be impeached, for the good of the country.

The core reasons, the ones that really matter, the ones that make it mandatory, are twofold:

1. The usurpation of legislative power primarily via abuse of the "presidential signing statement," which has moved beyond commentary upon law and into rewriting of law to change both its letter and intent, including de facto appropriation of spending authority, and;

2. The usurpation of judicial power through a variety of troubling precedents, the latest of which being the use of the NSA to shut down a Justice Department investigation of administration domestic spying programmes operated in direct opposition to established Federal law. The administration feels that the law is unconstitutional, and has, through its actions, declared that the question cannot even be investigated by Justice.

It is for these reasons that, for the good of the country, President Bush must be impeached. This amalgamation of power cannot be allowed to stand.

If you're wondering what I think about why President Bush's administration has clutched for power at every opportunity, my charitable response is that it is a reaction to failures and incompetence. Every time they have a significant setback, they attempt to exert more control over any related area, even though they are manifestly unable to handle the responsibilities they already have.

This is one typical response of incompetent managers - grab for more money (or power), claiming you don't have enough tools to get the job done. However, at some point, it becomes mandatory to fire the manager, for the good of the company. I believe that time has come.

Comments

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

I don't think it needs to be said, but very well put.

[cafiorello.livejournal.com]

Absolutely! The arrogation of power from the other two branches by the executive, destroying the whole framework of our Constitution and way of government--why doesn't everyone see it???

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

Because we're in a war and when we're in a war, that seems to be an excuse to some for the President to be allowed to do whatever he wants.

Checks and balances go out the window, apparently.

[solarbird]

What's irritating is the way that if you complain about Bush, you apparently become a Clintonite, even if you supported an impeachment of Clinton over abuse of power grounds, and considered the FISA court - the one the Bush administration refuses to use as too cumbersome! - as an abusive rubber-stamp tool of the administrative branch, giving it nearly unlimited spying ability over, well, anyone.

Oh well, could be worse; I could be getting the Sullivan treatment, where I'm simply declared to be deranged.

[brazilrascal.livejournal.com]

The media is just beyond the pale in the US. It makes the Pravda of soviet times look sane in contrast. At least the russian journos KNEW they were lying, and just wanted to keep their jobs.

Here we have Chris Matthews saying that "everyone likes the president, except for the real whackjobs", even when his approval rating was already in the toilet. Bill Bennet telling journalists that the reporters that broke the NSA scandals had to be arrested for treason, and getting only nods in return. And, it pains me to write this, The Washington Post has gone completely crazy in favor of Bush, printing editorials debunked by their own reporting in favor of the White House and accepting official claims at face value. I think they're after the Washington Times readership.

I wonder if it can all be blamed on 9-11. As I see it, it's more of a Beltway Club thing. Big-time pundits and editors are already part of the machine they supposedly watch over. They go to the same dinners, have the same friends, get ads and donations from the same sources. Clinton was hated not because of his sleazy antics or his (many) presidential excesses, but because he wasn't part of the club. It was imperious to remove the white-trash horny Big-Mac eater from the halls of power.

[(Anonymous)]

You're totally right, but the demoralizing thing is that it's still politically impossible. It won't happen until the Republican Party turns on him, or the Democrats win control of both houses of Congress and find a backbone.

I think the first option is more likely. As Bush's poll ratings drop (29% in a Harris poll yesterday) and he alienates the GOP base on immigration, he becomes a bigger political liability. Candidates will run away from him, but if they end up getting battered in the election anyway, they'll be looking for a scapegoat. There are enough scandals building out there that eventually it may become too much.

I suspect what will happen is that Bush will continue his slide in popularity as the scandals mount. Republicans will try to run from him, but will be punished during the elections. Whether or not control of Congress changes parties, the immediate post-election period will be ripe for a Republican revolt against the president. If he's going to be impeached, it will be then, in 2007. Democrats will probably play little role in this, as most of the leadership is too afraid of looking partisan, and apparently holding the president accountable for gutting the Constitutional separation of powers is now a partisan issue, at least to these cowards. I do expect that some principled individual Democrats have a role to play--Russ Feingold, for example.

[wildshadowstar.livejournal.com]

Thought you'd find this quote interesting:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American Public." Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

I've posted it on my lj front page a few months ago; when you got me to think more about the political situation.