Impeach Chimp?

Post Reply New Topic

I know in the mid to late 1800s there might have been some poor presidents, but given the war in iraq and the war in afghanistan, and what is below, could george bush be one of the worst presidents in US history?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=54110

Furthermore, does "All Hat and No Cattle from Crawford" warrant a rethink of impeachment? Does impeachment need to be easier and a more likely solution in the case of a really bad president? I wish that this were so, but I'm actually going to say NO in Junior's case. Originally, the Vice-President was the runner up in the presidential election. Very stately, in my opinion. But the constitution changed after some ruckus involving an unclear election. The Vice-President was then selected by the President. The impeachment provisions remained. Before, impeaching the President meant installing his political opponent into office. Now, impeachment means installing essentially his right hand man. Furthermore, Cheney, for example appears to be more than your average right hand man vice-president. Therefore, I am opposed to impeaching George Bush. The speaker of the house is third in line to the presidency, but Dick Cheney might resign as soon as he became aware of what was going on. Then Bushie Boy would appoint someone else. And it would continue and continue and become a mess even bigger that Nixon and Spiro Agnew.

It is most unfortunate that that border agent was beaten in prison, however from looking at the case I don't think a pardon in the case would be appropriate. Impeachment based on not granting a pardon of those agents would be a rather poor basis (a much poorer basis then say, the inappropriate* impeachment of Andrew Johnson for firing his secretary of war, or the appropriate* impeachment of President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice).

*In my opinion.

I think it is important to remember why the impeachment, and removal process is built the way it is. It is designed to make the process difficult. There have been many unpopular Presidents in American history, and some of them came back to be viewed as successes (Lincoln in 1862, Reagan in 1982), and some not. By simplifying the process, a President with a low approval rating will have to even more have to look out for scheming party officials looking to replace him. Also, if the opposition can merely remove him for the subjective reasons of "bad policy" we could easily see the Executive branch becoming increasing subordinated to the Legislative Branch. It is likely that a reform in the system would cause some destabilization of our entire government.

I don't know that impeachment would be warranted over this particular case, but a pretty compelling case for impeachment has been made on this website:

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer

Last time I read the proposed articles of impeachment, they were a little dated because quite a few people in the administration had resigned after they were written. But the overall reasons for impeachment are very compelling.

I strongly object with the claims of ImpeachBush.org and have said so before.

The website that is referenced is a front for the Workers World Party. While the WWP has never been able to get many votes in elections, they have been successful at organization front organizations (such as International A.N.S.W.E.R.) that have have been involved in the organization of large anti-war rallies in the United States, Canada, and abroad, as well as the above effort.

This party is not a democratic one, as Politics1 (not a conservative site) reports: