alibi online

Free Will AstrologyAlibi's Personals
                                                                                                   
 
 V.17 No.26 | June 26 - July 2, 2008 

The Radford Files

Impeachment? What Impeachment?

 
Eric J. Garcia
 

You probably didn’t hear about it, but on June 11, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush in the House of Representatives. The charges include obstruction of justice in the Sept. 11, 2001 investigation, violating United Nations charters, misleading the public about Iraq and illegally spying on Americans (it’s actually interesting reading; you can find it at kucinich.house.gov).

Kucinich’s historic efforts have received little support and virtually no press, with a news blackout surrounding the issue. Did you read about it in the Albuquerque Journal? Nope. To the best of my knowledge, the Journal has not printed a single word about the current articles of impeachment against George W. Bush.

Doesn’t that seem strange? A member of the House of Representatives brings 35 separate articles upon which the sitting President of the United States can be removed from office, but the Albuquerque Journal doesn’t consider it newsworthy? Did the Journal spike the story for some reason? I seem to recall front-page Journal stories about the articles of impeachment for President Clinton ... . Perhaps it was an oversight and someone should tell the Journal their Washington bureau missed the story.

Whether or not you believe Bush should be impeached, the issue must be raised so the people can decide. If Kucinich and others (more than one million Americans have signed a petition at ImpeachBush.org) who want Bush removed from office are wrong, then so be it. But let the government’s checks and balances do their job.

It’s important to realize that a vote supporting the articles of impeachment is not necessarily a vote to impeach President Bush. It is simply a vote to bring the issue up, to officially declare that there is a legitimate question of whether or not Bush has committed high crimes and misdemeanors that, if true, would warrant his removal from office.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that impeachment is off the table, and most Democrats have followed the party line. As for Tom Udall, his office explained that since Bush has little time remaining in office, “attempting to bring impeachment charges against President Bush, or Vice-President Cheney, at this point, would prove counter-productive.” Basically, he’s saying we shouldn’t even try to find out if Bush is a criminal, because even if he is, he won’t be president for much longer. But former Attorney General Udall fails to understand the law. If a man is suspected of embezzling from a company, we don’t decide not to put him on trial just because he’s a year from retirement. If a suspected rapist is caught, we don’t let him go because he was planning to move to another state soon anyway. Elected officials must be held accountable for their actions.

While some elected officials joined Kucinich, most of them didn’t. They don’t want to find out—and perhaps more troubling, they don’t want you to find out—whether or not the current President of the United States is a criminal. Our politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, are exhibiting a callous and shocking indifference for the rule of law and should be ashamed they refused to stand up for the Constitution they swore to protect.

Our elected officials’ refusal to support Kucinich demonstrates not only political cowardice but also a violation of their Oath of Office. Tom Udall, Pete Domenici and others swore to defend the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ... and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” We are talking about clear allegations of a domestic threat to the United States Constitution, and by ignoring it, Udall, Domenici and others have violated their oath of office.

The articles of impeachment against George W. Bush should proceed; if he has committed no crimes or impeachable offenses, then Bush should leave office with America—and the world—knowing he has been vindicated. On the other hand, if the charges against Bush are proven true, it will serve as a precedent for future presidents that no one is above the law. If you commit a crime, then you are subject to impeachment, regardless of whether you have one year, one month or one minute remaining in office.

The opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Public Comments (2)
  • Love Your Article!  [ Thu Jun 26 2008 8:38 PM ]

    Richard Wexler is also wanting to impeach Bush and Cheney during their remaining days in office. If we can't impeach them while they are in office, let's hold them accountable for war crimes and put them on trial as U.S. citizens when they come out of office. And I feel Larry Silverstein needs to be their cell mate!

    The real issues here are what this administration has done to all of us and how they are still doing things to us in plain sight. My eyes were opened when I watched a movie called Loose Change about the bombings of 9/11. For me I had always felt that our own government had something to do with 9/11, I just did not know the magnitude of their involvement until I watched the movie. Watching the news on that fateful day in September I thought everything about the twin towers coming down looked like a controlled demolition. But, like all of us we were told to see something different. The supposed plane that hit the Pentagon - I always wondered where all the plane parts were and why there was no luggage or seats scatted around and where was the tail section, etc... the movie answered these questions and a lot more I had. I had not spoken a word about my thoughts to anyone about 9/11 until I watched Loose Change this year. I cry sometimes for the people who lost their lives that day for nothing! They pulled off 9/11 with military ease to convince the American public the need for war. They needed something monumental like Pearl Harbor to happen to justify the need for the war machine. The American public was just collateral damage to them and we still are. I watched an interview with Cheney about the war and the news lady asked him about all the American lives lost in the war in Iraq and all he said was "so".

    My reference to Larry Silverstein, well he owned the World Trade Centers and they were ladened with asbestos and it needed to be removed, so he was more than willing to let them use his buildings for their evil deed. This way he could rid himself of the burden and cost of removal and collect on the insurance money, which he did.

    The Patriot Act was brought about by a paranoid president under the pretext to keep an eye on terrorist, but in reality it's to spy on all of us. This Act needs to be abolished because the only terrorist there are are already here and have been here for years, if you get my drift.

    The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. Lincoln said "Study the Constitution", "Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislatures and enforced in courts of justice." "The people are the masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert it!" Excuse me, but the Patriot Act is not in alignment with our Constitution!

    Give up rights for the common good? Where the people fear the government you have tyranny; where the government fears the people, you have liberty.

    Bush and Cheney need to be brought to justice along with everyone involved in this cover-up before they hide in Dubi out of our reach.

  • You're not ready to take on Bush..  [ Fri Jun 27 2008 9:07 AM ]

    ..until you've taken on your congresscritter. Just about everything he's done, has been with Congress' approval. They can't impeach him for doing stuff they authorized him to do.

    Sure, people like Kucinich and Paul (i.e. the few people who have been voting against the bills Bush asks for) can call for impeachment without hypocrisy, but they are far outnumbered. We elected "more of the same" in 2006 and that pretty much settled the impeachment issue.

    More of the same in 2008? It'll be too late to impeach Bush, but you can make life tough on whoever replaces him. Or not. It's your call, voters.

 
Join our mailing list for exclusive info, the week's events and free stuff!
 

  • Select sidebar boxes to add below. You can also click and drag to rearrange the boxes; minimize, maximize and close using the little icons on each box. To re-add a box you closed, return to this menu.
  • Because you are not logged in, any changes you make to these boxes will vanish as soon as you click to another page. If you log in, the boxes will stick.
  • alibi.com
  • Latest Posts
  • Most Active Stories
  • Latest User Posts
  • Highest-Rated Posts
  • Most Active Users
  • Web Exclusives
  • Latest User Blogs
  • Latest Chowtown Reviews
  • Recent Rocksquawk Discussions
  • Recent Classifieds
  • This Week's Alibi Picks
  • Albuquerque
  • Duke City Fix
  • Albuquerque Beer Scene
  • What's Wrong With This Picture?
  • Reddit Albuquerque
  • ABQ Journal Metro
  • ABQrising
  • ABQ Journal Latest News
  • Del.icio.us Albuquerque
  • NM and the West
  • New Mexico FBIHOP
  • Democracy for New Mexico
  • Only in New Mexico
  • Mario Burgos
  • Democracy for New Mexico
  • High Country News
  • El Grito
  • NM Politics with Joe Monahan
  • Stephen W. Terrell's Web Log
  • The Net Is Vast and Infinite
  • Slashdot
  • Freedom to Tinker
  • Is there a feed that should be on this list? Tell us about it.