Bushgate

Will George W. Bush face an impeachment? A superpower status of US means great responsibility, and calls for a great leader.

George Bush Junior can easily become the first US president confronting an impeachment process due to foreign policy reasons. American business in Iraq is going not just bad, but too bad. The question can be posed simply: do the States need another Vietnam? No sane man would say yes (and this problem is not only an American business). But Iraq has become "Vietnam" de-facto. And it is George W. Bush who should be praised for this.  

There were 3 impeachment cases in American history. The first was against Andrew Jackson, the 17th president. Bill Clinton was another, accused in misleading the court. None of them, however, resigned, and the only one who did was Richard Nixon, while he did it himself, without a formal impeachment resolution. It is interesting that one of the points against Nixon was Cambodia bombings, but juridical committee of House of Representatives declined this to be included as a reason for impeachment.

Impeachment procedures were also discussed in connection to other three presidents: Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. In all these cases no satisfying reason was found to make a president resign.

An idea of impeachment of George Bush, Jr. was already discussed in press after the September the 11th tragedy, when it was found out that the White House knew about possible terrorist attacks but did nothing to prevent it. The administration, however, silenced those voices, using among others an old means, tried by Bill Clinton as well when American jets stroke Iraq in 1998, in the middle of "Monicagate" scandal. That was not too much help for Clinton, but worked well enough for Bush: mass-media and public switched their attention to possible war with Iraq, successfully forgetting the scandals around September the 11th.

The White House did not expect Iraq to pose any serious problems, clearly. This war was seen a nice easy walk, which would greatly support prestige of George Bush and his team. It happened as they thought, indeed. Washington made no mistake presuming weakness of Hussein's regime, as obvious as it was after the 12 years of international sanctions imposed against Iraq. Craving to get rid of Saddam altogether in one day overwhelmed all sane reasons in favor of sane solutions to problems of international relations. In the end it all happened as certain analysts warned: destruction of Saddam's army does not mean the war is over.

A remarkable fact: in a few months after Baghdad was taken over by American troops, a question of Bush's impeachment was raised again. Santa-Cruz city council proclaimed it was going to file the impeachment, accusing Bush in starting the war in Iraq, breaches against international agreements and that by manipulating Americans (using their fear of terrorism) he limited their constitutional rights.

White House could not stay silent, but did all to express uselessness of this accuse. It was reported that president understands how this peaceful expression of protest supports the empowerment of democracy. Very kind and very scornfull…

George Bush should certainly not be afraid of impeachment at the present time. It is true that American soldiers die in Iraq every day. It is true that lots of money is spent on army expenses and so-called "restoration" of the country. Everyone knows about this, but the discontent is not yet critical, so to say. However, at the same time criticism of the administration becomes stronger with a day, and it is likely that a number of those who discontent with its policy will grow too. Another key aspect is that there is no way back. The troops can not be taken out of Iraq. First of all, because it will ruin Bush's image, and secondly (more prosaic), because who then would protect employees of all those American companies which "restore" Iraq (and which have been and will support Bush's election campaign)? Local police? Britons, Italians? Spanish, Polish or Japanese?

Of course, republicans who dominate the Congress now will protect their leader, just like democrats saved Clinton. However, even an unsuccessful impeachment procedure will be a great damage to Bush's image, and give him a warning. Moreover, if the situation to develop in the same manner, it is not only Bush but the whole Republican party who will suffer, and then the question of leader change can rise. Meanwhile Americans support Bush, often out of pure patriotism ("this man heads my country, and no one may criticize him, as he heads the only superpower in the world").

In reality, impeachment of Bush would be a great goodness for not only (and not that much, maybe) the USA, but for the entire world. If White House believes that the States are the only superpower and destiny of the world lies on their shoulders, then their responsibility has to be in accordance with that. So far, Bush and his team have created problems to be solved by everyone but not Americans. If the States really are the superpower, it has to be headed by a highly responsible politician, who can stand behind his actions. George W. Bush is not like that. So maybe it is better to get rid of him now, then damn him later?