-- 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.

-- Ann Coulter's November 8, 2006 Article

Let's see what Ann Coulter is up to since the election. On her site, her most recent article states:

Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.
Ann Coulter - November 8, 2006 http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

So, how true are Ann's statments? Let's start with her first item, Iraq. She claims Democrats want to surrender, or as she put it later in the same writing, the Democrats' policy is to:

Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy.

Is that what the Democrats want? Do we really want to just up and leave Iraq and not clean up the mess we made? Consider what leaders of the Democratic party in both the House and Senate said in a letter to President Bush in July:

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.

Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq's reconstruction and rebuild its economy.
Letter to President Bush from Democrats in both the House and Senate, July 31, 2006 http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/July06/IraqPlan.html

Wow. That doesn't sound like cut and run, Ann, that sounds like the Democrats actually have a plan. Empower the Iraqis to be able to take over their own country again, with all factions being fairly represented and guaranteed such representation in their own constitution. That sounds a lot like what we did here in America when our government was being formed, by the way. Get other countries from around the globe involved in this so it stops being America versus Iraq and shows that we have broad support in our mission. Bring our troops home in stages, so that the progress made in Iraq won't be undone as we leave.

This is a much more sound policy than the "stay the course" alternative that the Republicans have been touting for the past three years, and have recently dropped because of how far from reality it actually is.

How about her second claim of Democrats wanting higher taxes? Are the Democrats really hoping to increase taxes? Consider this from MSNBC:

Pelosi criticized congressional Republicans who have shown support for a new national sales tax, which she said would hurt the middle class ... House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., called for a national sales tax or consumption-based tax in a recent book. But Bush’s suggestion this summer that a national sales tax is worth serious consideration drew a backlash from Democrats and many Republicans, and the idea was quickly discarded.
MSNBC September 25, 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6095868/

Aren't Dennis Hastert and George Bush Republicans? They were the last time I looked, but maybe I missed something. If they are, then it looks like it's the Republicans who are looking to raise taxes, not the Democrats. In fact, every time Democrats start to pull ahead in elections, Republicans start spewing the same old spin, that if they're elected the Democrats will increase taxes. Why, then, are the Republicans the ones who have been trying to do that? Note that this goes back over two years ago, Ann. Nothing new here.

Finally, Ann says that the Democrats are for impeachment. According to an article in the Washington Post:

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.
May 12, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

Note that this was last May. Has anything changed since Democrats are now coming into control? No. Consider:

Presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the podium Wednesday to outline her party’s plans for the future and to reassure voters that she won’t lead a liberal inquisition against President Bush.

“Impeachment is off the table,” said Pelosi, D-Calif. “Democrats are not about getting even. Democrats are about helping people get ahead.”
November 9, 2006 http://www.examiner.com/a-388565~Pelosi__Impeachment__off_the_table_.html

Does that mean that Bush will not be impeached? Not necessarily, and I'll explore that in another post, but for now, it's not being considered by the Democrats, unlike the pathetic attempt that the Republicans made at doing something similar with Bill Clinton, one of the best presidents this country has ever seen. The major difference between the two is that after Clinton's impeachment, he remained as President, while Bush would not. He would be tried for high crimes that would not only remove him from office, but could very well land him in prison.

One thing about Ann's latest writing really surprised me. In a move that will distance her from other right-wing pundits, she admits that the Democrats won the election. Most of the others claim that the Democrats didn't win so much as the Republicans lost. Apparently, they don't think the American voting public had any interest in things like Iraq, torturing of prisoners or illegal wire-tapping, but Ann did.

Imagine Ann getting a fact right!