Jumper Bailey says he should not.
Here's Jumper's reasoning:
Clinton was impeached for lying about a sexual indiscretion, whereas the lies of this administration have pulled us into a quagmire in Iraq, bloodied our reputation around the world, caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis who didn't need to die over weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, undercut our civil liberties in ways that would make the normally serene Benjamin Franklin apoplectic, stretched our military resources, squandered our surplus, burdened our grandchildren with an economic albatross, neglected the suffering of our people in the face of natural disaster, opened the public coffers to corporate crooks, caused the torture of people who never committed crimes, destabilized the Middle East, created a new terrorist factory (in Iraq) where one did not previously exist, made the world a more dangerous place for everyone, robbed our seniors of prescription drug options that actually work, and wounded our future in ways from which we may not recover for a very long time.
Now doesn't that make you think impeachment is a bad idea?
Well, okay, there actually are a few arguments against impeachment, a very strong one being Dick Cheney would become president. It's tough to see how that would be much of an improvement. In any case, talk of impeachment is wasteful until and unless Democrats regain one or both houses in 06.
That's far more important than the spectacle of impeachment. Jumper also mentions that most Americans, particularly after having witnessed Clinton's impeachment, are against the idea.
Does that mean GW Bush is not the very worst president any of us have ever seen? Does it mean his policies do not imperil the very future of our country?
Let's not get carried away.
Posts
