Monday, March 26, 2007

Say NO to Impeachment

It seems the talks of impeaching President Bush are floating around again, only this time it was Republican Senator Chuck Hagel who brought it up.

I am against impeaching Bush for a couple of reasons:
1) The thought of Dick Cheney being the President scares me.
2) Bush will be out of office in less than two years, so what is the point.

Now that the President is dealing with a Congress that opposes him, he will not be able to ram as many things through. Yes this administration has abused its power and yes that needs to be investigated. More importantly though, Congress or the Supreme Court needs to limit the President’s ability to use signing statements. This administration has made a mockery of the law writing and signing process by his reckless abuse of signing statements.

Instead of impeachment, Bush’s hands need to be tied so that he, and future Presidents, will be unable to do the things that this administration have done.

And when I say his hands need to be tied, I an in no way referring to the war in Iraq, setting up time tables for withdraw, or anything like that. We need to leave Iraq when the Iraqi’s are ready to take care of themselves.


Redstater said...

I must compliment you on your steadfastness lefty. While I don't agree with everything you said in this post, I have to give you credit for being on the right side of the most important issue of our lifetime.

Unfortunately, I think we are going to have to also take out the Ahmadinejihad regime before the middle east can be stablized and the threat of Islamic terror controlled.

OR else maybe we should "open a discussion and have a chat"... with him.

Mr. Grey Ghost said...

I dont agree with most of what you in your post either, but let me compliment you on using common sense. For all the leftists who want to impeach Bush, it's rare to find one who can think ahead of a country being led by a man most claim to hate more: Cheney.

Sooner Fan said...

Yes Dave I think most would agree with you that impeachment is a bad idea. The two reasons you give are certainly reasonable enough not to doubt your sincerity on this.

I'm not sure how you intend to tie the hands of the president in any meaningful way. I'm also not sure we need to be tying down the commander in chief when it comes to such turbulent times. I think the checks and balance already setup when enforced properly should provide a balance of power that would appease most.

I also appreciate your thoughts on Iraq as it seems very popular to espouse other opinions lately.

Dave said...

Why would you or anyone else question my sincerity Daniel (sooner fan)?

This administration has stepped over the bounds of Presidential power and brought as much power to the White House as possible. By tying his hands, I mean proper checks and balances must be utilized to keep this administration in check. Now that Congress is controlled by the Democrats, that will hopefully happen. Again, this has nothing to do with the war. I think setting time tables for pull out is the wrong thing to do. I do not agree with how this war has been waged and I think there are questions that should be asked (like where is all that money really going), but the last thing we need to do is stop funding our troops or leave before Iraq is stable.

Redstater said...

You wanna see "stepping over the bounds of Presidential Power"?

If we were to get hit by an Islamic "nukular" assault on a major metropolitan area, it doesn't matter who is president... he/she will, as you say "step over the bounds of Presidential Power" by any/all standards before that event.

If you recall, there was an event... in fact several that day in 2001 that changed immediately the way a President does the business of protecting American citizens.
When we are at war, many Presidents have "overstepped the bounds" of previous times including President Lincoln.

Bush will NOT be the last to be accused of such.