Why I Believe Bush Must Go
Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.
By George McGovern /
Countered by tha malcontent
Sunday, January 6, 2008; B01 / Tuesday, January 8,
As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly
and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the
impeachment of the president and the vice president.
(For what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" specifically, George?
I am sure a "Statesman" of your stature and experience will be able share some
specifics. - tha malcontent)
After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach
President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought
that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of
personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.
(So you didn't call for Nixon's Impeachment... That
has what to do with ANYTHING today? - tha malcontent)
Today I have made a different choice.
Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The
political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship,
especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the
part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan
impeachment and conviction are not promising.
(So what's your point, George?... Impeachment isn't going to
happen, as you seem
to conclude, so are you just getting your name in the headlines one more time? - tha
But what are the facts?
(Excellent question... What are they, George? - tha malcontent)
Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have
repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and
international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their
conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a
historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high
crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.
(Just as I thought... NOT ONE SPECIFIC FACT!... This is
sad. - tha malcontent)
From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product
of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged
-- perhaps even by a congressional investigation.
("Questionable elections"... It's 2008,
George, everything is questioned as a matter of practice in politics these days...
It's tactical on both sides. Again, some specific crimes please. - tha
In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the
Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a
murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has
killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or
physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according
to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United
States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1
trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our
national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion -- by far the highest in our
(All of which has been authorized by the United States Congress, George... Are
you asking that they also be Impeached? Here�s a good read for some context:
You will notice that the reasons for going into Iraq that both Democrats and
Republicans authorized, are lengthy and specific. That JA does not say,
"Saddam has WMD and was behind the 11th". You guys really need a
talking point! - tha malcontent)
All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the
Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation
of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as
constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including
systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
(A Declaration of War is not required whenever the Military is
used... It's an
option for Congress, but it is NOT a requirement for every use of the military.
Here's the President's part regarding the Military in the Constitution:
"Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in
Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may
require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the
executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their
Note, "actual Service", not "Declaration of War".
Now to the Congressional responsibility:
The Congress shall have Power... To declare War,
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land
and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To
provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions;To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States
respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..." Again, the Congress has
authorized EVERY aspect of this since 2001 and continues
to, and in NO place in the Constitution does it require a Congressional
Declaration of War when the Military is "called into actual Service", it is
simple one of MANY Powers reserved for Congress. Any of these
substanceless accusations that the President is possibly Guilty
of in your emotion-filled mind, the Congress is also Guilty of, George.
You do understand that Fact, don't you? - tha
I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon
administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than
was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972
election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon
presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national
history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?
(I was hoping you were going to make the "Case", George... Unfortunately like so
many hysterically emotional and documentably ignorant Leftist before you, you
are failing to do little more than make substanceless claims of wrongdoing in
YOUR OPINION. Most of which are easily knocked down with the Facts. - tha malcontent)
How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing,
immorality and lawlessness?
(As I said, hysterically emotional... I can imagine he was
crying when he wrote
this. Thank God this man never made it to 1600! - tha malcontent)
It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress,
the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and
other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United
States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved
in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I
have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I
reflect that God is just."
(DemocRATS stated as a matter of FACT that Saddam had WMD, and had done so
since the late 90's while (43) was in Austin in the Governor's House. This dog
don't hunt, George. As for "Imminent Threat", Bush (43) NEVER said that... In
FACT, he said in the
State of the Union
Leading up to the War in Iraq that he wanted to Stop him BEFORE he became one.
�Some have said we must not act until
the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their
intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is
permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all
recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of
Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.� � President Bush
(43), January 28, 2003. But here's a Nugget of
TRUTH for you, George... John Edwards (D), did in FACT say that Iraq was an
<Click there for the Facts and
click here for
some Late 90's DemocRATS on Saddam. I have yet to
understand why the Left is either ignorant or dishonest to this day about that.
As for the administration claiming that Iraq was involved with 9/11... Please,
some substance to that assertion, George. One more thing... Here's what
ABCNews had to say about bin Laden and Saddam in 1999:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg <Were they lying? - tha malcontent)
The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of
fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the
invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal
tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led
government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are
at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world -- more than a billion people.
(Again, the specific CRIME, George?... "Encouraging a
climate of fear" is a
hysterical talking point based in OPINION not criminal Fact. There is absolutely
NO substance to any of George's claims, as I expected. - tha malcontent)
Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the
streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without
benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus.
("Habeas Corpus" does NOT extend to the Enemy on the
George... My God, this man is Ignorant of the Constitution on so many levels
that it's concerning. - tha malcontent)
Although the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that
Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the
country and the world. This is the same strategy of deception that brought us
into war in the Arabian Desert and could lead us into an unjustified invasion of
Iran. I can say with some professional knowledge and experience that if Bush
invades yet another Muslim oil state, it would mark the end of U.S. influence in
the crucial Middle East for decades.
(The President was advised by the NIE that they had no
solid proof of an active
nuclear weapons program, but that certainly doesn't mean the capability isn't
there, or that they won't start back up... And, the NIE is ONE source, George...
Reckless pluralization of your assertion?... Or was it deliberate? - tha
Ironically, while Bush and Cheney made counterterrorism the battle cry of their
administration, their policies -- especially the war in Iraq -- have increased
the terrorist threat and reduced the security of the United States. Consider the
difference between the policies of the first President Bush and those of his
son. When the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait in August 1990, President George
H.W. Bush gathered the support of the entire world, including the United
Nations, the European Union and most of the Arab League, to quickly expel Iraqi
forces from Kuwait. The Saudis and Japanese paid most of the cost. Instead of
getting bogged down in a costly occupation, the administration established a
policy of containing the Baathist regime with international arms inspectors,
no-fly zones and economic sanctions. Iraq was left as a stable country with
little or no capacity to threaten others.
(More opinion based assertions about a supposed "increased
terrorist threat"... And of
course the "Bush's Daddy" Card. I wonder what McGovern's opinion of Desert Storm
was at the time? Guess what, George... There was no "Declaration of War"
in Desert Storm either. Are you being ignorant or dishonest, considering
your earlier claims that OIF is unConstitutional as you have stated in this very
rant of yours? - tha malcontent)
Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military
occupation, Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil
strife. It is no secret that former president Bush, his secretary of state,
James A. Baker III, and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, all
opposed the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.
(Still lacking any Crimes in his assertions... Claiming that
Administration officials didn't agree with the invasion, does not an Impeachment
case make, George! - tha malcontent)
In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral
responsibility, there is the scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane
Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a
sentence: "I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled
as this situation in New Orleans." Any impeachment proceeding must include a
careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response
to perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.
(You can't be Serious, George?... Katrina?... Impeachment?... "High
and Misdemeanors", George. Let's assume the President wasn't very good at
that natural disaster, it's not a Crime to be inept. And in that, you have
to look at the Governor and the Mayor FIRST. - tha malcontent)
Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act.
Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to
deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It
is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us
feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the
impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is
the rightful course for an American patriot.
(Platitudinous and patently substanceless TRIPE!... George, are you
your own show on Err Amerika? - tha malcontent)
As former representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon
impeachment proceedings, wrote two years ago, "it wasn't until the most recent
revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly
thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA) -- and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the
interests of national security to override our country's laws -- that I felt the
same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate. . . . A President,
any President, who maintains that he is above the law -- and repeatedly violates
the law -- thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors."
(Present the proof that he violated the Law, END OF LIST!
"Possibly" doesn't indict. - tha malcontent)
I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the
opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will
depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses. At age
85, I won't be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of
our sorely damaged country, but I'd like to hold on long enough to see the
(Seriously George, you are giving self-respecting elderly
people EVERYWHERE a
bad name with these irrational hysterics. I hope it's age, because I never
thought of you as a stupid man. - tha malcontent)
There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed
that life to save the United States from genuine danger, such as the ones we
faced when I served as a bomber pilot in World War II. We must be a great nation
because from time to time, we make gigantic blunders, but so far, we have
survived and recovered.
(Thank you for Service to this Nation, Sir... But I must
inform you that your
Service in WWII does not validate your substanceless and emotionally
based calls for the Impeachment of a President for whom you have NEVER
supported. Your Politics are at play, and it shows. Get back to me when you have
some specific charges and evidence in that Impeachment document in your head.
And please, correct yourself where I have provided substance to counter your claims. - tha malcontent)
firstname.lastname@example.org (George McGovern)
email@example.com (tha malcontent)
(All commentary included on this website is the opinion of tha malcontent and is
based in the Truth. No Liberals, Marxists, Stalinists, Socialists,
Communists or DemocRATS were harmed in the making of this website, I promise!