Home

Why wait until 2008? Impeach Bush now

Thursday, February 16, 2006

10 Comments
Perhaps the story might be garnering more media attention if it involved a semen-stained blue dress, but there is growing public support in the United States for the notion that George W. Bush should be removed from office as soon as possible. The Bush Administration has consistently behaved as if it was above the law, while the institutions that are supposed to hold the executive branch in check – Congress, the judiciary, the media, and even many voters – have so far let them get away with it.

Without further ado, let’s take a look at the top eight reasons for impeaching Bush:

1. 9/11

Bush had a report that told him that “Bin Laden was determined to attack within the United States” but chose to go on an extended vacation at his ranch (apparently there was brush to clear) rather than do anything about it. When he was told about the first hijacked plane flying into the World Trade Centre, he became almost catatonic, and then flew around the country in Air Force One while his advisors tried to figure out what to do. Then, while no one else in the country was allowed to fly, he approved the evacuation of Osama Bin Laden’s family. Yet, somehow, he is still allowed to invoke 9/11 as an excuse for anything. In the real world, incompetence is usually grounds for dismissal.

2. Iraq

Bush’s advisors had already made up their mind that an all-out invasion of Iraq was the best way to secure American interests in the Middle East. They simply needed to make up enough reasons to justify the decision. As former CIA agent Paul Pillar notes in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, “the administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already
made. It went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq.” This wasn’t a case of faulty intelligence; it was a case of lying and manipulation. Lying is usually grounds for dismissal.

3. Torture

The administration thinks that it is exempt from “quaint” provisions of the Geneva Convention and even U.S. law. It has gone to great lengths to provide the legal justification for torturing prisoners of war (even denying that they are prisoners of war) and set up secret prison camps around the world where it can do whatever it wants. Breaking the law is usually grounds for dismissal.

4. Wiretapping

Getting judicial approval to intercept communications is just so inconvenient. Again, the 9/11 defence gets trotted out, but it turns out that the illegal wiretaps were already a reality before September 2001. As well, there is no evidence that the requirement for judicial authorization has stopped officials
from listening in on anyone. What the safeguards do is ensure that the government doesn’t spy on people merely because they don’t like them. Again, this kind of conduct would get a person fired from most jobs.

5. Blame

The White House was so consumed with the need to prove its case for war in Iraq that it went after the wife of Joseph Wilson, who had discredited one of their most important lies (that Iraq had sought to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger). Evidence points to top administration officials Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and even to Vice-President Dick Cheney as culprits in the outing. Vindictively putting one of your co-workers’ life in danger is usually grounds for dismissal.

6. Hurricane Katrina

A report this week confirms what was apparent to virtually everyone list summer – that the federal government was woefully unprepared for a natural disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina (although it had plenty of warnings). Once the disaster happened Bush cronies proved to be thoroughly incapable of handling the relief efforts. Not doing your job is usually grounds for dismissal.

7. Ambramoff

High-powered Republican lobbyist Jack Ambramoff is facing criminal charges for his activities. His ties to Republican members of Congress, administration officials and even the White House have been well-documented. The former Chief Procurement Officer for the Bush administration is also facing charges in connection with their role in the Ambramoff affair. Bribery and theft is usually grounds for dismissal.

8. Advertising Scandal

Just to make Canadians feel a certain kinship with our American neighbours, the United States has its own version of the sponsorship scandal. A new report from the Government Accountability Office report reveals that the administration spent over $1.6 billion in public relations and media contracts over two and a half years. Some of that was spent paying media pundits to promote the administration
agenda (although there seem to be plenty of them willing to do it for free). Spending public money on your own partisan ends is usually grounds for dismissal.


There are more reasons that Bush needs to be removed from office and much more detail available on each of the reasons given above. But space is limited and, if we took the time to go through them all, it’d probably be 2008 by the time we were finished.
| More

Comments

Back to Top
  1. Posted by: tom on Feb 16, 2006 @ 11:35am

    did I read this right? " voters – have so far let them get away with it." Perhaps thats because many Americans do not support your views and agree with Bush. Piatkowski if you wish to go against voters, you need to support a dictatorship.

    When I visited the states, mind you, I didn't spend much time in cities, it waas mostly with family and their friends and neighbours, they didn't have many bad things to say, they think Bush is acting in the best interest of the country, even it doesn't please everyone.

  2. Posted by: Jesse on Feb 17, 2006 @ 2:37am

    Bush is indeed very unpopular at the moment....but ironically enough, a lot of poles place potential republicans for 2005 (mccain/rudy) well ahead of the potential democrats (kerry/hillary).

    Obviously it's still pretty early, and a lot could happen in the next two years....but if you want my guess, I'd say that unless something drastic happens, a Republican will win in 2008.

  3. Posted by: KIMIK on Feb 17, 2006 @ 7:59pm

    It's funny, the US is willing to impeach a guy for cheating on his wife, but not for breaking UN international laws, failing to prevent catastophe's on his own soil, and spying on his own citizens (for justified and unjustified reasons), and for killing large numbers of people - many of them needlessly. Who, in our society, gets fired from their job for cheating on their spouse - only the president - for engaging in actions that really only affect himself, his spouse, his family, and the lady he had an affair with. But of course, killing people isn't morally reprehensible in the US, as long as it doesn't happen on your own soil.

  4. Posted by: Jesse on Feb 17, 2006 @ 11:00pm

    I can't link you to the poll, I didn't save the address....but it was fairly recent, and they polled the leaders head to head (a lot of hypotheticals). And it wasn't just some American Right-Wing paper either.

    I'm honestly pretty indifferent with regards to the 08 election.....as in I don't care who wins/loses. There's just too much I really dislike about both Republicans AND Democrats for me to want either party to win.

    I do think the Republicans will win, however. They will almost assuredly run a more moderate candidate in the election (Rudy certainly fits that mould), and that fact, when combined with incredibly weak Democratic candidates, will probably seal the win.

    Anti-Republicans are pretty vocal, and I think that tends to skew perceptions a lot. Remember 04?

    Anyways, please don't waste time trying to debate my speculations.....because they are just that.

    Time will tell.

  5. Posted by: Jesse on Feb 20, 2006 @ 9:45pm

    Luke,

    Say what you will, you're basing your forecasting on stats from a bad week in 2006 (it isn't every week that the VP shoots some guy haha)

    On that list, 1-22 are almost certain Republican locks, regardless of this week's stats. Do you really see Tennessee, North Carolina, or any other of those mid-west/southern states going Democrat? I'd put money against anybody who says they won't.

    There are a lot of people who don't like Bush, I will give you that. I'm somewhat in that boat myself, on various issues. But I think you are neglecting to consider that there also a lot of people who really don't like the potential Democratic candidates. Hillary being arguably the best example.

    It's going to be close, that's for sure. But unless a better Democratic candidate emerges, expect to see either McCain or Rudy as President in '08.

  6. Posted by: on Feb 21, 2006 @ 12:44am

    McCain I can see. Guiliani's star is already in decline after he personally recommended Kerik to Bush for the HSH Director position. I'd be surprised if he even bothers to throw his hat in the ring.

    And you shouldn't write off the south. While it's true that the Repubs have been slowly overtaking it for the last 20 years, the South was actually the traditional Dem stronghold. It's not a given that the Repubs will win it, and if Bush's medicare drug plan starts really messing up seniors, there's going to be a lot of old people in the South (and everywhere else) that will want a change in leadership.

    And yes, Hillary sucks. The Dems have a serious deficit in leadership of their own.

  7. Posted by: on Feb 21, 2006 @ 12:44am

    HSH = DHS

  8. Posted by: Jesse on Feb 22, 2006 @ 2:05am

    Yes I'm aware of Southern 'Dixiecrats'. But are you considering WHY it was Democratic territory, historically?

    Republicans were the party of Lincoln.....Democrats were the party of slavery, the party against Reconstruction.. Even in the Twentieth Century, Southern Democrats were a fairly regressive bunch. Look up Storm Thurmond and the election of 1948, for instance. Or else look up some of Woodrow Wilson's views, particularly on blacks. The regressive stance of Sounthern Democracts changed a lot during the 70s and 80s, and that was when the Republicans really gained steam (note that Thurmond himself switched sides in '66). Therefore, you can't really argue that it 'used to be a Democratic stronghold', and expect that fact to have any relevance in 2006. The variables are so totally different nowadays, that the comparison has ceased to make any sense - it's almost as if you're talking about two different parties.

  9. Posted by: Jesse on Feb 22, 2006 @ 2:21am

    This is from Wikipedia:

    After World War II, the civil rights movement took hold. A new wave of young, liberal Democrats were changing the face of the party, and Southerners were feeling alienated. However, most still voted loyally for their party. The old conservative stalwarts were trying to resist the changes that were sweeping the nation. With the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was the final straw for many Southern Democrats, who began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

    (cont...)

  10. Posted by: Jesse on Feb 22, 2006 @ 2:21am

    (...cont)


    When Richard Nixon courted voters with his Southern Strategy, many Democrats became Republicans and the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal. However, Democratic incumbents still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. In fact, until the 1980s, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control collapsed, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. Southern Democrats of today are mostly urban liberals, while rural residents tend to be either Republicans, although there are a sizable number of conservative Democrats.

Share your thoughts

Bookstore First Year