impeach bush now

Byline: | Category: Uncategorized | Posted at: Thursday, 29 December 2005

Yes, you heard me right, it’s time for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.  Let me explain. 

Talk of impeachment first began immediately after the 2004 election.  I suppose that up until the end of the first term Democrats had convinced themselves that they could actually win back the Presidency.  However, less than forty-eight hours after John Kerry’s concession speech, thoughts of a scandal-ridden Bush being driven out of office began to surface.

Paul Krugman was among the first.  “Future events,” he said on November 5, 2004, “will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback.”  “I don’t hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Bush’s second term,” Krugman duly noted, however, he quickly added that he did “expect them.”  I can’t help but to think that his statement had too much of a, “I am not a racist (wink, wink), but . . .” contained within it.

In the nearly 14 months since, the phrase “Impeach Bush” has very often been one of the top ten phrases bloggers are writing about according to Technorati, a site which ranks blog traffic.  Even now during the slow period in between Christmas and New Years, 30 different blogs have discussed impeaching the President in just the last 24 hours.

The simple fact is that, outside of a few locked-in-a-feedback-loop-leftists, the word impeachment is not near anyone’s lips.  Richard Morin, head of polling for ABC news noted impatiently that impeachment is “not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion.”  Sure, the I-word is all over the liberal websites.  One Daily Kos writer actually explores the possibility that Democrats could win the House in 2006 and then impeach both Bush and Cheney so that Nancy Pelosi would be president.  (In fairness, she said that it probably wouldn’t work, but that she considered it at all is preposterous.) However, even the Washington Monthly correctly noted in an otherwise fawning article about Kos founder, Markos Moulitsas, that frequent readers of those sites are “trapped in a bubble of [liberal] reassurance.”

Actually, there are more than just a few leftists arguing for impeachment.  Pat Buchanan now argues for the impeachment of the President because he hasn’t secured the borders as Buchanan would have done.  (Must be too many Jews breaking into the country for Buchanan to get his hackles up.)  Paul Craig Roberts also adds his voice to the impeachment chorus.  For him, Bush’s impeachable offense occurred in New Orleans because the President was unable to overcome (a) the weather, (b) an incompetent mayor, and (c) a governor more concerned with her fashion sense.  At least Buchanan and Roberts provide the valuable service of reminding Americans that political lunacy is not a monopoly of the left.

That the word impeachment—only twice tried against a president in over two centuries, and never yet resulting in a Senate conviction—springs so easily from so many people’s lips says not as much about President Bush as it says about those uttering the phrase. 

It’s like cussing.  Several years ago I went to Kuwait for four months to live in the desert surrounded only by other cavalrymen.  Like everyone else there, my language was atrocious at the end of the tour.  Whether used as adjective, exclamation, or punctuation, the F-word made its way into my every sentence.  I was trapped in my own feedback loop of swearing.  However, it didn’t take me long after my return to remember that civilized people don’t talk that way.

What those within the Impeach Bush-crowd don’t understand is that, similarly, civilized people don’t use the I-word all the time. 

Oh, but they’ll learn.  When they push the issue in Congress, and it comes to the floor of the House for a vote, boy, will they learn.  Then, having been chastised by the great middle ground that is the strength of the American body politic, far left Democrats, and a few on the radical right will finally come to the realization that George W. Bush is going to be President until January 20, 2009.   Either that, or those radicals will be marginalized by their stance and ostracized by their peers.

So, yes, bring forth Rep. John Conyers’ articles of impeachment.  It should be Speaker Hastert’s first order of business in the new year.  Rush it to the floor for a vote a la Rep John Murtha’s demand for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  And when the motion is overwhelmingly defeated, perhaps then we can put all this nonsensical talk about impeachment behind us and finally focus instead on the nation’s future.

Share this post:

35 Responses to “impeach bush now”

  1. Chris Wage Says:

    To me it seems the primary unlikelihood of any impeachment proceedings is the republican-controlled congress.

    If that were to change in 2006 (the likelihood of this is of course debatable, but things are not looking good for the Republicans these days), it doesn’t seem as impossible as you make it sound.

    And, a slight correction to your post — Clinton was actually impeached, he was just never convicted by the Senate.

  2. Paul Herrmann Says:

    Dear Mr.Krumm,
    You had me worried for a mili-second, after reviewing your article. Perhaps you are right. Let’s get on with the Liberal/Socialist Agenda and put it to rest.
    Literally stomp the thoughts of Impeachment into the ground.
    It want happen this way thoug, the Dems. will drag it out furthur to try and intensify the impeachment mood closer to the next ekections, I believe to their defeat.
    Good Article,
    Paul Herrmann

  3. Bob K Says:

    Chris is correct. Both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were successfully impeached. Neither, however, was convicted. (corrected above)

    But on the matter of whether or not party control of Congress makes a difference in impeachment proceedings, let’s put your theory to the test. If it is the obstacle you think it is, then when impeachment comes before the floor we would expect to find something like 45% of the House supporting it. Instead, I think that when Congress actually has to record their votes rather than just moving their mouths, we’ll find that it will go down to overwhelming defeat just as did Rep. Murtha’s motion to leave Iraq.

  4. indolene Says:

    Bob,

    I see another I-word farther down the comments of that Daily Kos post you reference:
    “If Democrats took Congress… It probably would not mean a January 2007 impeachment–It could very possibly mean a November impeachment where Hastert becomes INSTALLED.” (emphasis mine)
    (http://dailykos.com/comments/2005/12/29/204330/03/8#8)

    Doesn’t that person mean ‘elected’ instead of ‘installed’? United States congressmen are elected. Dictators are installed. I think when you explore the reasoning behind the stream of logic of comments like that, you will have found the answer to why the I-word is what it is.

  5. indolene Says:

    Oh my, I am a retard. The poster means installed as the president in the event of impeachment. But I know I’ve seen ‘installed’ in the context I was going for in my prior post at Kos before. To make up for my own ‘Fake but accurate’ mistake, I’ll hold my nose and go digging for a correct example.

  6. indolene Says:

    Nevermind, the Kos poster does it right there! The poster later goes on to use the moonbat version of ‘installed’ when he says, “I don’t think that Republicans would be so willing to abandon power and I doubt anyone would want to impeach a president who was not a part of the administration (remember, Hastert was INSTALLED during the Clinton era, unlike Frist who was Bush’s choice).” (emphasis mine)

    So in the very same paragraph, you see a person who, I think, has a solid grasp of the process of impeachment yet entertains grand fantasies of a republican dictatorship or cabal.

    Also, it looks like I need to rethink my New-Years-pre-partying-before-posting rule : )

  7. Lowdogg Says:

    Nice Work Mr. Krumm. Its a refreshing take on a tired issue. I am a bit tired of the lackadaisical response by most Congressional Republicans toward this kind of rhetoric. I don’t want more rhetoric. I want more decisive action. A move like the one you suggest would further demonstrate the impotence of the left. No Democratic Congressman has the guts to actually do it, so if the Republicans were to lay it on the table it would force the Libs to be counted.

  8. Keith D. Milby :: blog Says:

    Yes, Impeach Bush Now

  9. Mister Snitch! Says:

    Impeach Bush now!

    Congress should immediately begin impeachment proceedings against George Bush. Here’s why.

  10. Espella Says:

    Oh, please dear God in heaven, please make the liberals crazy enough to try this stunt. They won’t win one seat next year if they do.

    Amen. P.S. Please forgive John, Arlen and Lindsey. They know not what they do.

  11. Luke Says:

    Good article. Instapundit led me over here. Bookmarking your site.

  12. Charlie Eklund Says:

    Good piece, Bob. However, just as with John Murtha’s withdrawal talk, and the vote…make that the two votes…in Congress on that issue I don’t think that voting down articles of impeachment will shut the Looney Left up. They’ll continue to push for it, regardless of a vote, or many votes in Congress, against it, just as they have with the Murtha-Pelosi withdrawal plan.

    That’s just the way it is with Looneys.

  13. Cabal of Doom Says:

    Serenity now!

    Blogger Bob Krumm has a fantastic idea: vote to impeach President Bush next month. Force the liberal slugs to cast a yes or no vote to impeach in the next session of congress: So, yes, bring forth Rep. John Conyers’…

  14. Cabal of Doom Says:

    Serenity now!

    Blogger Bob Krumm has a fantastic idea: Bring up a vote to impeach President Bush next month. Force the liberal slugs to cast a yes or no vote to impeach in the next session of congress: So, yes, bring forth…

  15. Section9 Says:

    “Impeachment” is how the liberal Democrats get around the fact that they are a pacifist political party that doesn’t have the guts to defend Western Civilization against Islamic Fascism.

    The genius behind Farenheit 9/11 was that Moore understood what his faction actually believed; the entire War on Terror is a fraud. Bin Laden is merely Misunderstood. If we would only Leave Them Alone and not attempt to Build Pipelines for Unocal, everything would be hunky-dory. But instead, we are founded on original sin, and nothing we do, even in our own defense, can be held to be of virtue for long. The Democratic base’s opposition to the Iraq war isn’t about the war itself, it’s about the War on Terror-which they oppose.

    The American People get this-no amount of propping up a Potemkin Village candidate like Hillary will be able to alter the fact that the Democrats have become this pale imitation of the Canadian Liberals, or Labour’s back benches. The “outrage” over the NSA intercepts have fallen on deaf ears-the latest poll indicates that 64% of the people support the intercepts and Bush’s conduct of them. Glenn Reynolds was right; the NYT will come to rue the day it made such a to-do over the Plame Affair.

    So, when you’re on the wrong side of warfighting, what do you do? Pretend that the entire war is built on a lie, and scream “Impeachment!”. In the middle of a war, too. This I expect from unreconstructed zombie moonbats who worship at the altar of William Rivers Pitt over at Democratic Underground; not from experienced Donk congresscritters. That elected Democrats are peddling this vituperative bullcrap should tell anyone how far the party of Roosevelt and Truman has fallen.

    Democrats: the only thing they have left to offer is fear itself.

  16. BigMediaBlog Says:

    Do you have an actual counterargument to Pat Buchanan’s article?

    If Bush is thwarting attempts to secure the borders in order to let cheap labor flow into the U.S., isn’t that an impeachable offense? If terrorists are able to infiltrate the border because of our deliberately weak defense, what position do you think all those who put party above country will be in?

    What about Bush working with Canada and Mexico to create an EU-style “North American community”? Is there anything about that in the oath Bush took?

    What about the FDIC working with the Mexican consulate in Chicago to give home loans to illegal aliens. That started in 2003.

    What about Mexico’s Matricula Consular ID card? The FBI and the Justice Department say it’s “not a reliable means of identification” and that it “provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely in the United States without triggering name-based watch lists that are disseminated to local police officers. It also allows them to board planes without revealing their true identity.”

    The Bush administration fought to allow banks to accept those cards.

    If Bush won’t uphold his oath of office, then perhaps it’s time to put country before party.

  17. Dean's World Says:

    Now Here’s a Thought

    Bob Krumm says please start impeachment proceedings against Bush–pretty please with sugar?

    I think he’s right. It’s kind of fun watching lunatic…

  18. Parker Says:

    Impeaching the president for blatantly violating the fourth amendment, which I personally believe is part of the constitution he swore to uphold and defend, with the disingenious goal of affirming the president’s power to whatever the damn hell he wants, constitution notwithstanding, is not only a HUGE blow to libertanianism and the right to be left well enough alone by Big Government, it is an insult to the idea of constitutional government. I would argue that it is a very socially liberal view that you are taking, namely that the government should get in citizen’s private business to make sure citizens are doing all the “right” things and none of the “wrong” things as much as government has the time and energy (or money to pay contractors) to do, which is fine. But it is another thing to argue that politics is more important than the constitution–can you please explain how anything in the US government is more important than following both the spirit and the letter of the US constitution?

  19. FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog Says:

    President George Bush Watch: Impeach Bush NOW!

    It is all Bob Krumm’s fault.

    and Conyers…..well what do you expect…….

    I am calling upon Congress to create a select committee similar to the Ervin Committee, which investigated President Nixon’s Watergate crimes. This select committee should …

  20. PersonFromPorlock Says:

    I’ll see you and raise you one: Bush should insist that the Republicans in the House vote for his impeachment so that the fatuity of the charges against him will be proved on national TV in the Senate.

  21. woof Says:

    Do you have an actual counterargument to Pat Buchanan’s article?

    If Bush is thwarting attempts to secure the borders in order to let cheap labor flow …..

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Big Media Blog provides an excellent example of criminalizing political positions (and a touch of dictatorial fantasy). President Bush alone is not opening the floodgates of our borders. The current flood started with President Clinton who was expecting hundreds of thousands of new democratic voters to come.

    Also, everyone knows that Senator Ted Kennedy is a major proponent of immigration. Currently he and Sen. McCain are trying to pass yet another immigration bill.

    Sure impeachment. You probably believe in Harry Potter too.

  22. R. Neal Says:

    You guys are pathetic. How does Murtha’s resolution (which I notice you don’t link to) for troops to be “redeployed at the earliest practicable date” get translated into “immediate withdrawal”? Right out of the conservative groupthink playbook, I guess.

    And that’s just one of the many absurdities in this overwrought hate piece. Anyway, wish you had been blogging on Dec. 19th, 1998 so I could quote the “rule of law! rule of law!” rhetoric you would no doubt have been spewing. Apparently whatever the ruler says is the law is now the law and you don’t care.

    And spare me the “protect us from islamofacist terrorists at all costs” excuses. Bush and Congress are doing little if anything to actually protect the U.S. from any sort of attack or other disaster, yet we are paying an enormous cost in human lives and suffering, money, and civil liberties.

    Your hypocricy is astounding, your rhetoric is lame, and your ideas are obsolete. But at least it’s amusing, in a Dr. Strangelove sort of way.

  23. Tom Delay Says:

    “This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

    No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That’s the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.”

    -Tom Delay during the Clinton “scandal”

  24. tom swift Says:

    That “Jews breaking into the country” is not only a cheap shot, it’s just dumb. It puts a blot right in the middle of what is otherwise a sensible article.

  25. cosmo Says:

    R. Neal, ‘Tom Delay’:

    Yes, by all means, let’s see the indictments, articles of impeachment, whatever. I think that was the point of the original post.

    After five years of Bush Knew!, Bush Lied!, Bush Spied!, I’d like to see something more this time around than the kangaroo court ravings of arm-chair constitutional scholars like you guys.

    Sheesh. Rule of law, indeed.

  26. inmypajamas Says:

    Murtha’s suggestion was played as an immediate withdrawal by the media (read a few headlines) and “earliest practicable date” was just an acknowledgement of the amount of time it would take to remove all the troops as fast as possible, when “immediate” withdrawal is the goal. Please.

    I love how the Left cries “hypocrites” when they’re off howling and barking about illegality when none has been established and the silence from their side was deafening during the CIA and NSA leaks (not to mention warrantless searches during the Clinton years). Most Americans see this is as getting the job done of protecting the country and probably thought this type of activity was already occurring. We need to re-think our intelligence gathering to include monitoring US citizens in certain defined types of activities because not doing so previously cost us US lives. The Left’s knee jerk reaction to any monitoring is rooted in the activist past of the 60s and 70s when the FBI held files on many groups, not a few of which plotted and executed bombings and assasinations (Weather Underground, Black Panthers, etc.). Being a US citizen doesn’t give you hands-off freedom to plot to kill other US citizens and if the Constitution hasn’t addressed this issue, we need to address it now.

  27. CTD Says:

    Actually, liberals should love the spying. Once a Democrat is elected President, they could use it to monitor gun sales between individuals – for the children, you know. Or to make sure no one is using hate speech.

  28. apep Says:

    The GOP were afraid to present Murtha’s language. Instead they deliberately mislead the American people. The sheeple, of course, who for the most part, don’t pay close attention did not really care about the resolution. Which is why it did backfire on the GOP on this occasion.
    The GOP got a little too cute for themselves. Granted they can fool the public but they cannot manipulate the inner circles of the pentagon. Murtha will remain well respected where it counts despite the GOP mischaracterizations of his aims. GOP smears of him backfired to the people who matter.
    And by the way the Bush Administration does in fact have a timeline for withdrawal of troops: anytime prior to Nov 2006

  29. Luke Says:

    Hey apep,

    This ain’t tiddlewinks. Politicals is the NFL and Murtha, at best, is a scrub.

    Seen any information on just how he won his two “ouchies” in Nam? Didn’t think so.

  30. HARD RIGHT Says:

    Like It Ain’t No Thang

    In a post about the various calls for Bush’s impeachment, the Krummball just sort of asserts offhand that Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite: Pat Buchanan now argues for the impeachment

  31. Spacecraft Says:

    Al Weed: Running on an impeachment ticket?

    Raising Kaine interviewed Al Weed, who is running to replace Virgil Goode as U.S. Congressman from the 5th district of Virginia. I think this statement will come back to haunt him later this year:
    I believe that Bush has committed an impeachable off…

  32. cdhall Says:

    R. Neal said:
    You guys are pathetic. How does Murtha’s resolution (which I notice you don’t link to) for troops to be “redeployed at the earliest practicable date” get translated into “immediate withdrawal”? Right out of the conservative groupthink playbook, I guess.
    Answer: include the entire statement in Murtha’s resolution:
    The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

  33. Eleanor A Says:

    What a load. Krumm and others know impeachment isn’t gonna happen in a million years with all the Republicans taking dictation from BushCo, so it’s easy to bandy the idea around.

    The arrogance is truly astonishing. It’s like they don’t understand that eventually, control of the Congress *will* go back to the Dems. Not that there’s much difference between the Parties, given the influx of corporate funds running into the two coffers, but at least the Dems aren’t aggressively trying to liquidate the assets of the nation while refusing to pay for school subsidies and drugs for seniors.

  34. arealpatriot Says:

    You lost the election not once,but twice! Get over it,you pathetic liberal! Liberalism proves that the I.Q. of some “americans” can still real low levels!You show us real Americans how to run this country and maybe we will take notice! Untill then,go to hell!

  35. arealpatriot Says:

    Sorry,typos…Liberalism proves that the I.Q. of some “americans”can still reach low levels!…but still please go to hell with your socialist bullshit.Or just leave this GREAT country.