Arguments Against Bush Impeachment…

            <br /><strong>&#8226; If we impeach Bush, we&#8217;ll get President Cheney!</strong><br />The most recent impeachment resolution introduced by McKinney included Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Although, even if we only initially pursue Bush, initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

In addition, no matter who we get to replace Bush, we’ll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

• Promoting impeachment will seem too “extreme.”
Demanding that crimes be investigated is NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn’t rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for. Nixon’s impeachment, however, was bipartisan.

• We should wait to impeach…
Wait to impeach? We’ve waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial, just like an indictment. Our congress people didn’t take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution. Besides which, our troops, Iraqi civilians, and our own civil liberties are all waiting for this.

• Before we impeach, we should get some legislation passed…
And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get ANYTHING accomplished without first impeaching Bush? Some people discuss the power of the purse, but do you really believe Bush will stop using the nation’s credit card because Congress passes a law?

If your tire blows while you’re driving, do you stop to fix it? Or do you continue driving on your rim because to stop would take too much time?

• It hurts the democracy to go through a presidential impeachment. And Bush is a lame duck anyway.
Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.

Sometimes reprimanding a child (president) doesn’t make the family (Washington) a happy place. But you still have to do it so the child and his siblings (future presidents) learn about accountability. Impeachment is horribly UNDERUSED, which is part of why there’s so much corruption at the top. Politicians must learn to fear it. People think things are better because we improved the make-up of our law-making body, Congress. But Bush is BREAKING LAWS. So, it doesn’t matter how many laws Congress passes if they don’t serve their OVERSIGHT duties as well by impeaching. They swore to defend the Constitution. What are laws without enforcement?

Besides, Bush can still do a lot of damage. Our troops, Iran, and our Supreme Court are all endangered so long as he remains in office. Waiting until Bush is out of office will leave us complicit in any further crimes he commits. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the death toll from a "tactical" nuclear weapon of the kind Bush is contemplating using in Iran would be at minimum 3 million men, women, and children. The path of death would stretch across country boundaries into India.

Perhaps worst of all, we set a terrible precedent by allowing Bush to stay in office after he’s broken so many laws. Impeachment will stop future presidents from using Bush’s actions as justification for even more lawbreaking and erosion of civil liberties.

• I’m a Democrat/Republican. If we support impeachment it will lower the chances of my party winning in 2008.
So, your party would rather win elections than do what’s right for the country? I hope you’re wrong. I also hope the public is willing to throw additional support to any party that holds our elected officials accountable for their actions. This has been historically true with every single impeachment effort launched. And this impeachment effort would begin with majority support (unlike most past impeachments including Nixon).
 
• Impeachment will never happen. The Republicans will block it.
Well, all we need is a majority of support in the House. And 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove Bush from office will happen once the evidence gets aired on the floor of the House, and subsequently the national media outlets. The political pressure will become too great.

Today’s impossibility is tomorrow’s reality. Republican Congress members will realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009— but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush’s poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they’ll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It’s already starting to happen. While many Members of Congress have behaved unethically in the last few years, it’s important to understand that this is related to their warped view of what’s in their self-interest. Let’s wake them up to their true self-interest (impeaching the president), by showing them our support for impeachment.

And even if we only impeach, and the Senate fails to do their duty and remove him from office, it will only implicate the Senators who fail to do their sworn Constitutional duty.

• But Speaker of the House Pelosi said that Impeachment was "off the table."
Pelosi most likely said this to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment. What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.

• But the public doesn’t support impeachment.
Newsalert: Newsweek’s recent poll shows 51% support for Impeachment.  Not to mention that Bush’s approval ratings are less than half that of Nixon’s prior to his impeachment investigations.

• You’re just angry at what happened to Clinton
Impeachment is a nonpartisan issue. It’s not about Clinton, Lincoln, or any other president. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered a waste of time because they were pursued for things that didn’t rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the Impeachment tool was intended for. The argument that we can’t impeach Bush because there are previous presidents who also did bad things is the same as the argument you might hear from your child that you shouldn’t punish him because the neighbor’s kid did the same thing and didn’t get punished. We don’t want a presidential rush to the lowest common denominator. We have a duty to hold THIS president accountable to the Constitution.

• If we don’t support our president, we aid the terrorists.
We support terrorism when we fail to deal with its root causes (poverty, lack of education, support of dictatorships, etc.). We also support it by enabling a president who creates breeding grounds for terrorists — like Iraq has now become, thanks to our invasion and occupation.

Middle Eastern countries are upset with the oppressive international policies of the past and current administration. We might develop more healthy relationships with these countries if we appeared to learn from our mistakes by impeaching a president who has been so instrumental in that oppression.

• Impeachment is the wrong approach. Our government is tyrannical, and needs to be violently overthrown through a popular revolution.
What makes you think that if our government fell today, the U.S. population would replace it with something better? Violent revolutions are bloody business, and there’s absolutely no guarantee that even with the best of intentions the resulting new government would be an improvement over the current one. Indeed, it could be much worse. This is because revolution only makes sense once the people understand the problem. Thanks to a complicit media, most people don’t have the information they need to fully understand what’s currently happening in the U.S., so before we can create positive change, we must help them to understand the situation we’re in. We don’t do that by pushing them away with what appears to be extremism. We must use skillful means to reveal the tyranny of this administration (and government in general). We can do this by making reasonable demands (for instance, that suspicious activities become subject to investigation). Each time we’re denied, more and more people will see the injustice (especially when we take to the streets each time!). Slowly we’ll get enough people on board to create the changes we need, whether our goal is gradual repair of the system or revolution. But either way, the path is the same: First, we try to change the system. When the system shows itself to be tyrannical and unwilling to change, the people will move closer to revolution. If instead, the system allows the demanded changes, then we’ve won a victory — and maybe the theory that the system is hopelessly tyrannical is flawed. The real point is that political change is a process, and we need to have the resolve to see it through. Demanding immediate perfection is unrealistic and counterproductive, and too easily turns into a cop-out for failing to do the hard work of creating meaningful change.
 
Side note:
Some Democratic Members of Congress have indicated that they’re not currently pursuing Bush’s impeachment. While this is upsetting, they percieve it to be in their (and the Democratic Party’s) political best interest, at least until the political pressure builds. There are other reasons they’re waiting as well, and one of those things is us. They (as well as Republican members) need us to legitimize their support for the process. Having millions of ImpeachForPeace.org’s "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment" arrive at their door is one powerful tool toward making that happen.