Posted 23:00 by Grote 0 comments

Partisan Politics! Yay!

So, John Kerry wants to present the "Downing Street Memo" to the Senate. Assuming you don't know what this is; this is a memo stating that Bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq, even before 9/11. Kerry has stayed mostly quiet for the last six months of so (minus the Sec'y of State hearings) and now he wants to present the memo to the Senate. So are impeachment hearings coming our way for the second time in as many administrations?

First, Article II Section 4 of the Consitution states: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." High Crimes, in this case, refers to felonies. So the question comes down to did the President commit a crime of the above? While invading Iraq isn't the smartest course of action, Treason it isn't. He didn't accept a bribe (as far as we know) to invade Iraq; it's not as if Haliburton sent him a check after the invsion began. I guess it comes down to whether or not Bush commited a felony in executing the war in Iraq.

He took the issue to Congress which both houses, in majority, granted the power to invade Iraq. Also, in 1998 Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. So does that mean Bush was following the law when he invaded Iraq? Well, not really, the law states that if Iraqis rose up to overthrow Saddam, that the United States would be legally obligated to render Non-military and military assistance. So, if Democrats want to impeach the President, they'll be entering murky territory at best. In other words, right at home for the US House of Represenatives.

There's only going to be one opportunity for them to pull this off. They need to retake both houses of Congress (The House acts as the prosecution, The Senate acts as Jury and the Chief Justice acts as Judge according to Article I Section Two Clause Five and Article I Section Three Clause Six). Which, lately I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats did take it back. While the democrats have been quietly licking their wounds (this witholding judges thing isn't new; it's been going on before the election in the distant hope that President Kerry would withdrawl the nominations and resubmit new nominations) the Republicans have been been angering moderates (as myself) and if they don't turn it around in the next year or so, they'll lose both houses and by June 2007, Bush will be brought up on charges. Now obviously there's a bunch more variables between now and then. We actually find a WMD stockpile somewhere, or we catch Osama Bin Laden and Bush becomes popular around the world again, or maybe something less crazy.

But there's another catch. After the midterm elections a second term president becomes a lame duck. Politcos and the like begin to look towards the coming election begin throwing out names for both parties for the nomination. (Guilliani, Clinton, McCain, Edwards, Frist, Kerry?) Bush begins to pick a spot and a desgin for his Presidental Library, campaign for his party. So the point would be moot at best and at worst look like the Democrats were just exacting revenge for the Republicans winning the 2004 election, and for the Republicans impeaching Clinton.

Ok. Bottom line time, do I think Bush should be impeached? Debatable at best. Do I think he will be impeached? Nope. By the time the Democrats can get a vote to impeach, Bush is a lame duck president and will become history in less than two years.