The Impeachment Of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney
The discussion in the New Hampshire House this past week on a resolution calling on Congress to consider the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney was awesome to watch. For over one hour, points of view on both sides of the issue were capably put forth.
.
The final vote of 227 to 95 -- I was in the minority -- was stunning to me in that I was surprised there would be 95 House members willing to put their names on a roll call vote in favor of the resolution. I had talked with the sponsor, Betty Hall, the evening before and morning of the vote and expressed my view that it would be hard-pressed to break 100 votes, but that she had already "won" by bringing the issue forward. The resolution was "tabled," and that was a motion that about half the Democrats and almost all the Republicans wanted to do. But first, the Legislators respectfully allowed for a round of debate.
.
Especially interesting was that no one -- not one legislator -- defended President Bush or Vice President Cheney. Not one. In fact, no one I talked with even in the hallways of the State House defended these men. That they got us into a war that did not need to be fought, taking our attention away from the real war on terrorism and leading to the deaths of more than 4,000 brave American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of other men, women, and children is uncontested. I'd like to hear even one NHInsider.com Blogger or commentator give a valid defense of what Bush-Cheney & Company has done. No wonder the Bush Administration has only a 27 percent approval rating. The American people get it.
.
The New Hampshire Legislature is the people's square. It is where we can hold discussions about our state and our nation, and do so with passion while doing it with dignity. For Republicans and Democrats alike, the debate on the House floor about whether to impeach the leaders of our nation illustrates the strength of our democracy.
.
By the way, I thought Deputy Republican Leader David Hess did an excellent job presenting his opposition to the resolution. I also thought Representatives Betty Hall and Paul McEachern, speaking in favor of the resolution, did a fantastic job. Each was in the House in 1973, as I was, when a similar impeachment resolution came up concerning Richard Nixon. That one got 22 votes. This one got more.
And at least by January 20, 2009, Bush-Cheney & Company will be gone on their lone and bleak journey into history.
Rep. Jim Splaine
7 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (7)
Of course you will not find any legislators willing to defend other public figures with such low approval ratings. But that speaks more to the gutlessness of elected officials looking for votes than it does the people they will not defend. Removal of Saddam Hussein from power had been the official goal of this nation as of 1998 - when one William Jefferson Clinton was in the White House. And when the invasion of Iraq first took place, 60% of Americans supported the decision. Oh how easy it is to change sides now, except when you have the responsibility of carrying out the mission. How many Democrats who now bash the President and the Vice President on a daily basis supported military action not too many years ago? I can name one - Hillary Clinton. OK, so perhaps you and Representative Hall were always opposed. At least you are consistent and there is something to be said for that. But policy differences do not suffice as grounds for impeachment. This entire debate in the NH House has been a complete waste of time and simply a forum for moonbats and other anti-Bush types to pontificate and get their 15 minutes. How about taking up issues that actually impact NH taxpayers? The time spent debating this foolish resolution should have been spent debating the school funding amendment or maybe finding some ways to dig us out of this massive budget deficit you Democrats have created for us.
Secondly, in this country one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Bush is a bad president and isn't a very bright person, I'll give you that. But if being an idiot is ground for impeachment then we'd quickly run out of politicians from both side.
Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath during a trail in which it came out that he was getting oral sex while having phone conversations with heads of state regarding placing our troops in dangerous situation.
Simply repeating Moveon.org or Moore's comments do not make a case against Bush. Build your case and present FACTS and maybe you'll get your wish of seeing people attempt to defend Bush. Until then why bother, all you have now is a group of people making fools of themselves to the point their own party wont support their actions.
Bush deserves great blame for this mess but the Democrats are just as culpable.
Somebody tell Mary Walz.
http://nhcitizen.org/walz/
I appreciate your passion in this matter.
You know what would be interesting to read? I think if you were to pretend to be George Bush for a few minutes and pen a defense of the decision to invade Iraq, that would be pretty good reading. Surely you could do such a thing, no? I would assume that anyone who believes Bush and Cheney should be impeached has complete mastery over what their reasons were for going into Iraq in the first place; otherwise, calls for impeachment would be fatuous and mere theater. Besides, I can't give a meaningful defense of Messrs. Bush and Cheney if I do not know what you think they have done wrong.
I am one of the very few people on the planet, I suppose, who opposed the war at the outset and yet now sees it as something akin to an act of genius (I STILL oppose war, mind you). I am not saying it is genius, nor am I suggesting the war has been executed perfectly. But I am saying this: nearly every article, op-ed or polemic I've read opposing Bush's "War of Choice" (as if there are irresistible wars) has got Bush's case for war wrong. What unites my anti-war peers, nearly all more liberal than myself, is that they embrace a narrative that bears little resemblance to my own recollection of history.
I offer you this: If you lay out either a case for why the war was fought, or why you think it should NOT have been fought on the grounds Mr. Bush presented, I will offer my defense in return. Fair enough? I hope so. It should be grand fun.
Lastly, you mention that you would like to see a "valid defense of what Bush-Cheney & Co. has done." I am all for that, but I believe it behooves you to outline what a "valid defense" must look like. Remember, in logical terms "valid" only means that the conclusions drawn are justified by the premises offered; that the conclusions NECESSARILY follow from the premises. Validity has nothing to do with truth per se, though most would agree that truth must be rational. Does that make sense?
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
NHInsider Blogger
We need to send these legislators home and put others in their places who will try to stop the out of control spending and taxation that has been wreaked upon us in the last 2 years. NH is going downhill fast thanks to you Democrats.