Posted on 09/01/2005 10:24:22 PM PDT by goldstategop
Apparently, many people missed the point of my column calling for the impeachment of President Bush for his dereliction of duty on the border and his non-enforcement of immigration laws.
Some readers explained to me the impracticality of a successful impeachment.
Others tried to tell me Vice President Dick Cheney would carry on the same misguided policies.
Still others told me such a move would play into the hands of people like Hillary Rodham Clinton.
So let me take another stab at this.
I echoed Pat Buchanan's call for a bill of impeachment to be introduced by some courageous Republican member of the House of Representatives. I am politically astute enough to know that such a bill has no chance of approval by the House. Few Republicans would support it, and Democrats would like to see him removed for office, but for different reasons.
But the beauty of a bill of impeachment being introduced by a fellow Republican is that it applies political pressure on Bush to do the right thing. It raises the heat. It would be designed as a wakeup call to the president. The purpose would be to get Bush to change course on the most important national security issue facing the country.
The goal would not be to indict Bush in the House and try him in the Senate. The objective would be to point out in glaring terms that Bush has abrogated his oath of office to defend the country and faithfully execute the laws of the land.
Now, in the extremely unlikely event (I would see it as nearly a political impossibility) that the impeachment were successful and Bush were removed from office, does anyone truly think that his successor would make the same mistake?
I don't think so. Whether it was Cheney or someone else, the new president would understand there is only one way to remain in office and that is to carry out of the will of the people and execute the laws of the land as they pertain to the border.
It would completely change the political dynamic in the country.
And far from helping the Hillary Rodham Clintons of the world, the bill of impeachment would be designed to take this powerful issue out of their hands. Right now, Clinton and other Democrats are plotting to hijack this illegal immigration issue. The only way to prevent that is for Republicans – some Republicans – to get on the right side of this issue immediately.
What we are talking about here is a bill of impeachment introduced by at least one member of the House Republican caucus. We are not talking about a successful impeachment. We are not talking about removal of Bush from office. We are talking about a way to turn up the heat on a president who has neglected what may well be his most important duty to his country, what may be the most important part of his oath of office.
It would be an extreme act of patriotism.
It would be a courageous act of duty to one's country.
It would be a selfless commitment to the Constitution, the law of the land and the will of the people by an independent man of principle in the House.
Of course, it might also be an act of political suicide. But, if we don't secure our borders, we are on a course of national suicide.
It may not matter how well the war in Iraq goes.
It may not matter how well the war in Afghanistan goes.
It may not matter whether we ever capture Osama bin Laden or not.
If we leave our back door open, if we do not secure our perimeter, if we continue to permit this quiet invasion of our country, we are risking imminent judgment on our nation.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
LOL
I enjoy his website.
But, I've heard his radio show.
Joseph Farah is a shrill idiot.
What he's really saying is "Oops! I screwed up, and alienated 98% of my audience... What the hell am I going to do now! :D
A symbolic impeachment? Using the Constitution other than what it was intended for -- high crimes and misdemeanors and the subsequent removal from office -- is so...
liberal.
He did the same thing when Y2K failed to produce the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenario.
A false prophet if there ever was one.
Is he the king of hyperbole or just a loon?
Whatever. He does himself no favors with his over the top blather,
Farah is an idiot. He either doesn't know or doesn't care how politically damaging it would be for a "Republican" to introduce an impeachment resolution. Not to mention how unjustified it would be.
I think it's best to completely ignore his lunatic writings. Posting them, and then trying to analyze them gives him a bigger microphone, which serves no useful purpose.
Country first, politics much, much later.
He says: ""The purpose would be to get Bush to change course on the most important national security issue facing the country. "Keeping terrorists and WMD out of the country is the most important national security issue, but border jumpers are not an important security problem.
All of the terrorists have entered the US at ports of entry using government issued documents. None have jumped the border.
Border jumpers can barely carry enough water to make the trek, much less drag a two ton nuclear warhead.
WMDs will either be manufactured in the U.S. or be smuggled in vehicles or shipping containers.
A terrorist organization would be totally incompetent to attempt an insertion of personnel and equipment between ports of entry. The risk of being caught is astronomically higher than entering at ports.
The author of this article is just another bumper-sticker-slogan mentality loser trying to get some attention.
The guy is a dipstick who doesn't have a clue about history or politics. Farah is doing the liberal's work
for them.
Why does he support what Pat Buchanan wants when Pat's
running mate was a marxist.
All of the above.
* El Pingo *
And nobody addressed the point that a bill of impeachment would inflame violence in the Middle East, because our enemies would use it as proof that they're winning.
Where would they get that idea? Why our media will paint it like that.
I thought Joe Farrah wasn't allowed on Free Republic?
Does Farah ever write a paragraph with more than one sentence? Just askin'
I used to enjoy WND but not nearly as much, increasingly.
As far as Farah goes, he endorsed GWB's re-election, the loon. Flip-flop? Only the shadow knows...
I'm glad the issue is being raised. Bush does need to feel some heat on the issue. People who are hired to do a job should be fired when they don't do their job. Bush is an employee of the American people, and he must answer to us for the way he performs his job. If he won't do the job he swore he'd do in his oath of office---enforce the laws, defend the borders---maybe the threat of "firing"---impeachment---will get him worried enough to fulfill his duties.
The immigration issue is getting attention: it's in the top ten list of issues the American people are most concerned about, and it's moving up rapidly. It's the issue GW's most unpopular on right now---not Iraq, not the economy---IMMIGRATION. Hope it flattens people like you.
Joseph Farah: The Male Cindy Sheehan.
Having a Tancredo or someone like that introduce the amendment as a way to bring publicity to the issue - not such a bad idea.
Problem was some folks thought Farrah was seriously advocating impeachment, which is a little like advocating a solar landing in it's futility.
it took Barry Goldwater to end the Lyndon LaRoche wing of the GOP and people like this nut job keep trying to bring them back. We are growing and changing and these people are still in the stone age.
So... you do agree with the 'nutjob' not to impeach the president, and do agree that the heat needs to be on him on the immigration issues... or did I misread something?
Who cares what this Fool thinks? Or the Fool he is piggy-backing upon? Or anyone at WorldNut Daily?
Well, we'll see if and when the "great leader" tries to push his illegal alien amnesty proposal this fall, won't we? :-D
It will pass or fail. And I have no problem with whichever result is determined upon. But the insane proposal to impeach him is just joining the enemies of America.
If your boss tells you he'll fire you if you don't start doing your job, what do you do? Do you denounce him as insane? Or do you get off your duff and work like hell to avoid getting fired? If it takes a threat to Bush that his employer, the people, will "fire" him via the Constitutionally valid procedure of impeachment, maybe he'll finally do his job on the issue that polls show people are most unhappy now with him on: immigration. That's what the people making this "insane proposal" want---and if that's what it accomplishes---i.e., Bush enforcing the law and securing the borders---, none of us "insane proposers" will have any more legitimate quarrel with the man.
The "beauty of a bill of impeachment" ? Farah is one sick bastard.
Yeah, "beautiful." It's "beautiful" when our top elected official finally enforces the law and secures the borders four years after 9/11. What's "sick" is not doing so for so long. Or don't you agree?
That analogy is not appropriate. If my boss tells me that while I am busting my butt fighting a war which will determine the fate of Western Civilization I would tell him to screw himself. Just as I have those advocating THIS insane course.
In addition there is no voice to be taken seriously adopting the idea of impeachment.
That analogy is not appropriate. If my boss tells me that while I am busting my butt fighting a war which will determine the fate of Western Civilization I would tell him to screw himself. Just as I have those advocating THIS insane course.
In addition there is no voice to be taken seriously adopting the idea of impeachment.
In other words, since "the great leader" is "fighting a war which will determine the fate of Western Civilization," for all practical purposes, the President is absolved of his oath of office, the Constitution is suspended, the President is no longer accountable to the people, and he is no longer responsible for enforcing the immigration laws or securing the border.
Thanks. I know all I need to know now about your position.
Farah wants Bush impeached--regardless of what his CYA says.
I personally don't want Bush impeached, as he's done nothing to warrant it. Waving impeachment is not a tactic to induce action--it is a tactic to remove someone from office. As for methods of getting Bush to pay attention to the border, there are plenty of lobbying methods which will work fine. The problem is, no one's trying them--some people seem to think that complaining on a website means that Bush will automatically hear their cries and do their bidding. You haven't misread anything: you're just trying to fit me into a stereotype, and failing miserably at it.
I suggest you read Farah's previous columns, since by your own admission you're unfamiliar with him.
No? Let's try and see.
it is a tactic to remove someone from office.
Only if the target doesn't try to address the reason why he's being impeached. See, Clinton was impeached for he did, and couldn't undo. Bush would be impeached if at all for stuff he's not doing---enforcing the law and defending the borders---and if he's still too stubborn or derelict to do anything even under the threat of impeachment, well, do YOU think a man like that should avoid impeachment? We'll see if the American people think so.
Oh, get over it, will you? Bush will not be impeached--primarily because he hasn't committed a high crime or a misdemeanor (whereas Clinton clearly committed crimes), and secondarily because a GOP-controlled Senate will not vote to impeach. Not even the RINOs would vote for that.
Keep fantasizing, though. It must be nice to be able to diverge so fully from reality.
You know, I remember people laughing when Bob Tyrrell published "The Impeachment Trial of William Jefferson Clinton" in November 1997. 'Member what happened two years later? Oh, and by the way, the Senate doesn't vote to impeach under the Constitution. But thanks for trying. See ya in two years.
Sorry, my mistake: it was only one year later. And what precipitated it? Why, the revelations about Lewinsky in January 1998. I don't know what might precipitate Bush's impeachment---I hope and pray that it's no more injurious than what Monica did to Clintigula. But you can't predict the future.
My typo as well: I meant to say that the Senate will not vote to CONVICT.
I have no doubt that some in the House would vote to impeach--besides the Democrats--but DeLay's leadership would prevent a successful impeachment vote.
My luck is just fine, thank you: meanwhile, your impeachment fantasies will never come true.
Mmm-hmmm, and since you mentioned DeLay, no one in the Republican leadership there is at all worried about the immigration issue's impact on the 2006 elections and what it might mean for Republican control of Congress? Is that why DeLay's been out front lately warning that there'll be no guest worker amnesty program until there's more immigration enforcement and border security? There're some people in the Republican Party who don't want one man's obsession with letting in millions of peons to work for nothing for his corporate buddies, to p!ss away the control of the House and Senate Republicans fought so hard to achieve. And if they can't stop him from his folly, Bush isn't the only person who's going to be sorry facing a Democratic House again.
It might not be the be a good tactic, but all I'm saying is I at least understand that he didn't mean for W to actually BE impeached.
I'm sure they're worried, which is why Bush is coming out now and speaking on the border.
That doesn't mean he's going to be impeached, nor does it mean he's serious about the issue.
Enjoy fantasyland.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.