-- Should George Bush be Impeached?

Many right-wing pundits have stated for months that if the Democrats take control, one of the first orders of business will be to try to impeach George Bush. Nancy Pelosi has stated that this will not happen (see my post, "Ann Coulter's November 8, 2006 Article at http://pattgavin.blogspot.com/2006/11/ann-coulters-november-8-2006-article.html), but is she correct? Even though the Democrats are not planning on impeaching the president at this point, could there be circumstances that would make it not only feasible but necessary?

Possibly. Bruce Bendinger of Chicao, Illinois has put together a fascinating video of George Bush comparing his performance in a debate ten years ago, when he was running for Governor of Texas with more recent examples, and in this video, the change in the man in such a short period is striking. The video can be viewed at http://www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz.htm which also contains information on how the video came to be created.

Briefly, it started with an article in the Atlantic Magazine about the change in Bush over the years. The article, written by James Fallows, drew several responses, and one of the letters came from a doctor who said that the change could be caused by presenile dementia. For a full text of the letter, see either a copy of the magazine, or their site at http://www.theatlantic.com/. Note that to read the full articles on their site you'll need a subscription.

You can also read more about this in an article in the Boston Globe here http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/09/14/a_medical_cause_for_bushisms/

What is important about this issue is that it's not new. When Mr. Bendinger writes about reading an article in the October issue, he fails to mention that it was in 2004. This is incredibly important, as it indicates that our president may be deteriorating mentally, and has been for years. If this is the case, then it changes everything. In a telephone conversation I had with Mr. Bendinger, he mentioned that one physician he spoke to said that if you stuttered ten years ago and you stutter today, you have a history of stuttering, but if you didn't stutter ten years ago and you do today, something must be causing the stuttering. That, in essence, is the issue with our President.

I have never been a fan of either of the Bush presidents, and I wouldn't be unhappy to see this one removed from office, however, if the cause for his removal is a mentally incapacitating illness, then there will not be any joy in seeing him leave office. If he does, in fact, have any kind of disease or infirmity that will limit is mental capacities, it is imperative that he be removed from office before such deterioration causes him to do something that will harm either himself or the American people.

Arguments can be made that he has already done this (invading Iraq springs readily to mind), and in listening to his speeches, even very recent ones, it is easy to say that such a diagnosis might very well be valid. Of course, as the articles linked above will discuss, it is possible that his stumbling over, and creation of new words has another cause, and one that is not linked to any abnormality in the brain, but the difference between his performance of ten years ago and those of late is astounding.

As the President of the United States and the leader of the free world, the President has a duty to his people. Not just to his constituents, but to all people, and that duty includes being completely honest about any medical condition that may adversely effect his ability to perform his duties. I think it is imperative that a neurologist, chosen by Nancy Pelosi be brought in to examine Mr. Bush thoroughly, and those findings need to be reported to the American people.

I would suggest that this be done immediately, simply because if it is found that Mr. Bush does suffer from a disease that is destroying his mental ability, for his own good and the good of this country he needs to be removed from office. Such removal should be done now, while the Republicans are still in control of the House and Senate. If George Bush is removed from office during 2006, Dick Cheney will assume the presidency and Dennis Hastert will become the Vice President. If, however, the impeachment doesn't happen until after the new Congress takes office, Dick Cheney will still take over the role of President, but the office of Vice President will likely be assumed by Nancy Pelosi.

It would not be fair for the Democrats to take the Vice Presidency if it could be held by the Republicans, who are, after all, in power. This action, however, needs to be initiated by the Republicans. Should they refuse to impeach their president (and it's understandable why they would refuse to do so), they have to realize that if it becomes necessary for our own safety to do this, they'll lose the Vice Presidency out of their own fault. The ramifications of this could be historic. Since Mr. Cheney has not been shown to be the healthiest physical specimen among the Republicans, should he assume the top spot with Ms. Pelosi second, and should he die in office, not only will the Democrats assume total control, but we will have the first female President of the United States.

Note, however, that no Democrat, Independent, Moderate, Liberal or Progressive (pick a label, any label) should find any joy in gloating over the removal from office of a man who has a medical condition that prevents him from leading this country. If this does, in fact, turn out to be the case (just as it was for Ronald Reagan), then we need to offer understanding and compassion to George Bush and his family. As I said, I've never been a fan of this president, but I would not wish Alzheimer's on anyone.