Why I Believe Bush Must Go
by George McGovern

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.

Today I have made a different choice.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.

But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation.

In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion -- by far the highest in our national history.

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?

How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?

It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world -- more than a billion people.

Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus.

Although the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world. This is the same strategy of deception that brought us into war in the Arabian Desert and could lead us into an unjustified invasion of Iran. I can say with some professional knowledge and experience that if Bush invades yet another Muslim oil state, it would mark the end of U.S. influence in the crucial Middle East for decades.

Ironically, while Bush and Cheney made counterterrorism the battle cry of their administration, their policies -- especially the war in Iraq -- have increased the terrorist threat and reduced the security of the United States. Consider the difference between the policies of the first President Bush and those of his son. When the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush gathered the support of the entire world, including the United Nations, the European Union and most of the Arab League, to quickly expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Saudis and Japanese paid most of the cost. Instead of getting bogged down in a costly occupation, the administration established a policy of containing the Baathist regime with international arms inspectors, no-fly zones and economic sanctions. Iraq was left as a stable country with little or no capacity to threaten others.

Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military occupation, Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil strife. It is no secret that former president Bush, his secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, all opposed the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.

In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral responsibility, there is the scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a sentence: "I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans." Any impeachment proceeding must include a careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response to perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.

Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot.

As former representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon impeachment proceedings, wrote two years ago, "it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws -- that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate. . . . A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law -- and repeatedly violates the law -- thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors."

I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses. At age 85, I won't be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of our sorely damaged country, but I'd like to hold on long enough to see the healing begin.

There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed that life to save the United States from genuine danger, such as the ones we faced when I served as a bomber pilot in World War II. We must be a great nation because from time to time, we make gigantic blunders, but so far, we have survived and recovered.

He'sa little late to the dance but the band still has a few numbers left in it's final set.

It took GMcG ALL of 7 years to figure this out? I guess better late than never.

What scares me EVEN MORE is what might crawl into the presedental-shaped-void that he's currently parked in...

his damage to this nation is already done, and he's been rendered somewhat harmless in his last days in office, but God helps us for what lays ahead for our crumbling former super-power nation after he leaves and ANY of the current Dems take power with the current Congress to usher in the new dark-era of America...

Unless a viable third party alternative comes forward soon, We, the People of the United States are fucked.

Ben, with all due respect, you are a FOOL to limit your contempt for the Democratic candidates. Do you really think things would be any different in 2008 if a Republican were to be selected? If you truly believe that, you are blind AND a fool.

I took the time to watch the debates, and I have taken the time to really review and browse ALL the candidates platforms.

Here's MY take on it: The BEST choices I see out of a very limited field, are (wait for it)

Bill Richardson - best grasp of foreign policy
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/home

Ron Paul - best grasp of reality
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Chuck Hagel - best choice not currently running
http://hagel.senate.gov/

Otherwise, we will be stuck with the same load of crap that's currently pouring out of Washington.

Fuck the Status Quo.

-- Modified on 1/6/2008 1:43:06 PM

Just saying the name "George McGovern" tickles my nose like cheap champagne.  

"Why Bush must go" - such a daring essay, considering a president can have only two terms.  What a daring hero McGovern still is. He will definitely make sure Bush isn't elected a third time, with such powerful prose and his psychic healing of American.

Oh, the quagmire.

I think bush should go, because bald poon rules.   But if conjuring up Spiro T. Agnew floats your boat, I'm cool with that.

Have his pension revoked, or something.

Repubes don't stand a even the slightest chance of winning, regardless who ends up winning the primaries. Thus I'm merely "conserving" my contempt by only focusing it on the few Dems that may unfortunately win this thing...

I'm not really looking for a "President" to emerge on the scene from either party, I'm hoping/praying that we will get someone who is more of a wrench in the political-fuck-machine rather than a big can of ass lube...  

GaGambler agreeing with me twice in the same day, and now Ben Dover makes a statement I agree with even to the extent of the earthy language.

"I'm hoping/praying that we will get someone who is more of a wrench in the political-fuck-machine rather than a big can of ass lube..."

Note to GaGambler: Maybe it IS the Apocalypse, and we are the forebearers of Armageddon.

Naaaaaaaaah! I think its just because we all recognize the sheer state of mediocrity surrounding the current campaign.

Maybe we can ship him off to Guantanamo and have him waterboarded.
Or surfboarded.
Something...

But that's not what we've got here.

Perhaps buying one of these missle sites and converting it into a subterranian home will save us from the impending doom of the up coming election...

a little at a time.

or I'd be in fucking New Zealand already.

You cannot "bunker down" and think it's safe.   You need mobility: social, financial, you need networks, and knowledge.   Firearms only advertise violent intent, when you can usually accomplish what you need to surreptitiously.

The Republicans have just tried to solve overpopulation in their way, ie., start a few wars.
The Democrats will try their way, ie., bore people to death.

on earth, it never has been nor will it ever be.  Christ, get some balls........

have him waterboarded.
Or surfboarded.
Something...


LMAO!

Doc's eternal quest for solutions to lifes problems...

still LMAO...!

the backstabbers in Congress will have to put their money where their mouths are and bring facts rather than childrens bedwetting stories....

most Bush haters would rather just see him lynched,

which of course puts a bright shiny light of their REAL love of our Constitution and due process.........

freeeegin hypocrites

I do agree with your ideas of mobility and liquidity, and would add to that live WITHOUT any debt. Likewise, I've never found need of a firearm off of myown property..

It's quite another thing to imply that people shouldn't be, or shouldn't try. I now consider Bush being put on trial to be fair.

The only justice in the universe is what a person or people can impose on it. And that isn't whining, because it isn't whining to declare a purpose; otherwise, a businessman's desire to make money is "whining" as well. I mean, why would anybody make money if they're not dissatisfied with what they already have?

But I'm certain you won't be that fair. So, you'll just have to be bugged by my opinion-- again.  

And you're still a fucking bully, getting upset by exactly what would upset a bully.  

We should be so lucky. I wish we had even one candidate that I thought was mediocore.Mediocrity would be a huge step up for our current slate of candidates.


"I'm hoping/praying that we will get someone who is more of a wrench in the political-fuck-machine rather than a big can of ass lube

Great fucking line.You're right, It must fortell the "end of days"

I really do think the best we can hope for is a "wrench", someone IMO like Clinton (Bill not Hillary) who sort of stayed out of the way and didn't fuck anything up too badly.If I were convinced that Bill would be the real behind the scenes POTUS if Hillary was elected I'd vote Clinton in a heart beat, but I know better.

I now consider Bush being put on trial to be fair.
zinaval, 1/7/2008 4:14:16 PM
The only justice in the universe is what a person or people can impose on it. And that isn't whining, because it isn't whining to declare a purpose; otherwise, a businessman's desire to make money is "whining" as well. I mean, why would anybody make money if they're not dissatisfied with what they already have? "



 whiner...  To complain or protest in a childish fashion..

 
There will be no impeachment of President Bush!!and making money isn't whining..some people like to work....get over It..

 


 

They're still pissed that the Reps went after Clinton, unfairly IMHO, so they feel it gives them license to go after Bush, equally unfairly IMHO.

I imagine the losing party in the next election will be screaming for the head of the next POTUS by about the year 2010.

I think I might change my handle to "Bully from Minnesota", I kinda like it!

Further, rather than call you a whiner again, I think I'll allege that you have no penis, or perhaps a very insignificant one because you sound like a fucking woman/child.

Let me go with logic on this one Zin (and try to stay with me); if Bush goes on trial and gets slapped around/fined/censored/jailed/executed etc, how does it help your pathetic situation in life?  Because his life will then be reduced to a state much closer to that in which you find yourself?  

Try this, you are a poor little boy playing at the park and a kid sits next to you eating an ice cream cone.  You ask him where he got it and he says he just mowed a lawn and bought it from the evil profiteering ice cream man with his money.  You again interupt his rest from his recent labor and tell him you want ice cream too, but have no money and the fair thing would be to use his money to buy you some ice cream.

 He tells you to go to hell and not only do you get mad, you begin an endless rant about God, the evils of Christianity blah, blah...As he is trying to walk away from the you (because he thinks you are a fruitcake) his cone falls from his hand and now you both have no ice cream.  Do you feel bad for him or are you glad because now neither of you have ice cream?  

Well, in my world, you are happy and laugh your ass off and then the little boy kicks your ass and goes and buys a new one...but then he comes back and berates you for being a whiny little bitch who should spend some time getting a job and buying your own damn ice cream and to quit taking up the God given oxygen that productive people rely on to make the world go 'round.

Well, my dish of Kemp's Moose Tracks is gone, so goodnight Zin..............

You're the one who came in here saying that liberals are whiners. You were full of shit then, and you're more full of shit now.

But to get down to your arguments: I say Bush should be put on trial. He prosecuted an illegal war against Iraq, deceived the American People as he did it, violated the solidly established principle of Habeas Corpus, and destroyed evidence. That's what I could think of off the top of your head.

Now, here's your counterargument:

"There will be no impeachment."

Wow. The force of your manly hard-on has totally  shamed my puny, whiny demands.  

First, I didn't say impeachment-- I said TRIAL. What he has done is criminal and charges like that under international law have no statute of limitations. Given the number of deaths and the amount of suffering he has caused, he practically must be prosecuted. Since when has being tough on crime been equated with whining?

"and making money isn't whining..some people like to work....get over It.."

Here's your formula: (no it isn't) + (get over it)= 0  

or would if you didn't add your imaginary 9 inch dick.  

I didn't say whining and making money were the same thing. I said the will to make money is driven by discontent.

Was I getting just too Politically Incorrect for quaddie-waddie by suggesting that greed might not be holier than other passions?

-- Modified on 1/8/2008 6:02:56 AM

First: how does it help my "pathetic" situation in life? That would imply that you really think my political convictions revolve around just me and my situation. That demonstrably isn't true. Such as when I said tonight that I did not like Hillary Clinton's stand on education; that plainly doesn't involve me, doesn't involve my offspring. Yet, it's important. The country's education system is killing it.

Your question also poses a dilemma: what would be the right answer, IYO? Do you wish that I think only of myself and ignore heinous crimes? Or do you think I should realize I just think of myself and putting Bush on trial would defeat my purpose?

Second, I never did what you described as a kid, so I solidly, without a doubt, don't think like that.  

But that's mere reality, and I know it must be ignored to discuss your factitious hypothetical. For it to have anything to do with Bush, one would have to make a few adjustments. First, the other kid doesn't have an ice cream cone, he has a tire iron. Like me, he's a third grader. Instead of mowing lawns, he leads his chums over to another school, beats up the first graders, steals their lunches and lunch money, scatters their books, pisses on their homework, and justifies it by saying they'll be real men when he's done.

It's brought to the attention parents sometimes, but the parents just holding meetings and tell him  that if he keeps it up, they might just try to stop him.

As it turns out, in a few month school will be out, and so he'll have to stop.

Now, should he never be punished for what he did?

It's a far cry from jealousy about an ice cream cone, though if he buys one from lunch money he mugged from other kids, I'd get more pissed off . . .

And can we both start keeping this off a personal level?  

-- Modified on 1/8/2008 5:56:27 AM

Find me a 10-year-old who says Bush should be put on trial!
Posted by zinaval, 1/7/2008 9:49:02 PM
You're the one who came in here saying that liberals are whiners. You were full of shit then, and you're more full of shit now."



  SURE I did say  liberals are whiners .. I have never seen happy liberals ..Where are they?


 "But to get down to your arguments: I say Bush should be put on trial. He prosecuted an illegal war against Iraq, deceived the American People as he did it, violated the solidly established principle of Habeas Corpus, and destroyed evidence. That's what I could think of off the top of your head."

  So Mr whiner do you also think Tenet should also be prosecuted along with Colin Powell ..{Powell not being for war but guilty of presenting false evidence}

"Now, here's your counterargument:
"There will be no impeachment."
Wow. The force of your manly hard-on has totally  shamed my puny, whiny demands.  
First, I didn't say impeachment-- I said TRIAL. What he has done is criminal and charges like that under international law have no statute of limitations. Given the number of deaths and the amount of suffering he has caused, he practically must be prosecuted. Since when has being tough on crime been equated with whining?"



ONCE again there will be no trial BECAUSE Bush has not committed any Prosecutable crimes. Being tough on crime is what Bush does best..Bush doesn't whine and he is tough on crime and you come here and lower yourself to child talk to rebut me.

"and making money isn't whining..some people like to work....get over It.."

Here's your formula: (no it isn't) + (get over it)= 0  

"or would if you didn't add your imaginary 9 inch dick."

You are not only a whiner but you act like a child when flustered. I have always been proud of my small dick..I never hurt the ladies  

"I didn't say whining and making money were the same thing. I said the will to make money is driven by discontent".

 You need to read your own statements before you post..I doubt most people try to make more money because of miscontent..I certainly do not.Of course I can't speak for the liberals as they always portray discontent.

"Was I getting just too Politically Incorrect for quaddie-waddie by suggesting that greed might not be holier than other passions?'

 Maybe Greed is your subliminal passion.. Sit down and think about it but try to not whine so much ..You are starting to remind me of Hillary.

-- Modified on 1/8/2008 6:02:56 AM

Yes, I can see it in others. I don't see what you or whatsisname in MN are pointing out. I see it as an insult, of course, but I can't understand WTF you are really referring to. It's like being called a fag when you're very blatantly hetero. An insult only without any attachment to reality, and also having nothing to do with anything. How do I know you aren't just irritable?  

So, could I ask you for an explanation? Since you seem so obstinate about it?  

As for other things: hating work, no, I love to work. "A child when flustered" no-- when you have no argument except declarations backed by what? Something mysterious? Like making money being based on discontent: "No it isn't." That doesn't express a thought.

If you were completely happy and content with or without the money, why would you ever strive to make money?? Answer that question, please.

-- Modified on 1/8/2008 10:45:12 AM

Fortresses are very important in military history. I mean, maybe the Maginot Line didn't work, but when it came to 11 miles between them and Britain, the Nazis didn't know what the hell to do.

Posted by zinaval, 1/8/2008 7:31:31 AM
"If you were completely happy and content with or without the money, why would you ever strive to make money?? Answer that question, please."




For you to ask such a question shows a vast difference in our basic desire to work..A few of my reasons to work whether I had the $$ or not.. Sorry you couldn't think of any before you asked me such a question..

 maybe for the same reason some people jump out of airplanes as for the thrill of it..
maybe because I  wanted to give more away.
maybe to insure I never get bored.
maybe to push myself .
maybe because of pride.
maybe to insure I don't turn into Fat Bastard
maybe because I enjoy working..
Maybe just to feel productive.

You would not jump out of airplanes for a thrill if you were happy not doing it.

You wouldn't want to give away more money if you were happy keeping it.

Anticipation of getting bored is not a happy experience, therefore you wouldn't be avoiding boredom if you were happy anyway.

You wouldn't push yourself if you were happy unpushed.

You wouldn't be concerned about pride if you were happy being humble.

If you were happy fat, you wouldn't need to be thin.

If you just enjoyed doing nothing, you wouldn't have to enjoy the added difficulty of working;

If you were happy idle, you wouldn't have to waste your time being as happy productive.
----------

I'm just illustrating that happy is not state that everybody thinks it is. It isn't a motivating state of mind. If you're completely happy to the point where you don't anticipate unhappiness from anything at all, you don't do anything. Why do it?

That's why I think the better state to be in is somewhat happy. You just do more.


-- Modified on 1/9/2008 10:45:10 AM

Doc: Remember a politico from Chicago by the name of Dan Rostenkowski,(Dem)? He got caught with his hands in the cookie jar as far as the House Bank scandal, and the House Post Office fraud. He got 24 months in federal prison, reduced to 17 months, which he served.....and still kept his pension and his franking privilege money. Politicians of both parties stick together when their paycheck is at risk. Go figure.