Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i do not see the logic here, mr. mephisto.
|
I'm not sure which logic (or argument) you are referring to.
I have no "logical" reason to defend Bush or state that impeachment is inappropriate. That's just my opinion. Everyone here should know I'm no fan of the current Administration, and/or Bush in particular!
You know, I think the Republicans devalued the American political system in their hate-campaign against Clinton. Calling for his impeachment because he lied over a blow-job was just ridiculous. It set a
dangerous precendent. Now, impeachment is tossed around willy-nilly by political pundits.
- He lied? Impeach him!
- He was wrong, and should have known better? Impeach him!
- I don't like the current President. Impeach him!
- You tried it with our guy. Impeach him!
It gets tiresome.
Impeachment should only be used in extreme cases. In the face of a clear and consistent, pre-meditated and cynical attempt to lie to the People (capital P) or the Senate/Congress, with a view to hiding, promoting or undertaking illegal activity. I'm not convinced Bush is guilty of this. Why? Not because I don't think he lied, but because there's still debate on whether (as far as the US is concerned) the war was illegal in the first place. Furthermore, impeaching Bush because there were no WMDs found is just plain silly. I believe
he believed there were. Hell, even I believed there were. In fact, and let's not forget this,
there were WMDs. We know this because Hussein used them.
What really bugs me is the changing of the goal-posts. Now we continue to hear that Iraq was linked to 9/11, that Iraq was sponsoring anti-American international terrorism, that the war was to protect America. This is all nonesense. That's why I don't like Bush. At least, that's one reason. But even I don't see the value in impeaching him. Why descend to the Republican levels of political cynicism and pettiness?
He lied to justify the war. Well, so what? He should not have been reelected. But he was, so the American people (or at least 50.1% of them) don't care. Let's move on and chalk this one up to experience. Next time you want to run against a popular President, make sure to choose a candidate with charm and one that appeals to the Southern states. Not that difficult really.
Quote:
when i used the word impeachment earlier, i did so with specific reference to the emergence of new, extensive documentation about this administrations policies of torture, its extent, its administrative reach, etc...ther eshould be political hell to pay for this administration on the second. there should be political hell to pay for this administration on the first as well, but it is more complicated.
|
Do you think Bush personally approved torture? I do not. I think Rumsfeld did and should be sacked. But not the President.
Quote:
to back up:
how does the fact that the fabricated-ness of the wmd claims have been revealed repeatedly since the period before bushwar got underway function to make these problems ok?
how is this not simply repeating one of the administrations main claims to legitimate its own conduct? "ah well, poo poo, we have known about this for a while now"--does that not seem a bit surreal to you?
|
Yes it does. And that's the [
raison d'etre of a democracy. If you don't like what an Administration does, vote it out. The American people had their chance and, depending upon your opinion, either stuffed up or supported his policies regardless. But impeachment over this? I don't believe so.
Quote:
|
this kind of move is purest damage control. i am surprised to read/hear folk recapitulate it as if it reflected upon questions of substance. i imagine there was serious political hardball played to prevent this from coming out too officially before the election.
|
Honestly, I don't think it would have made much difference. You know why? Because, whilst foreign policy and US actions in Iraq may mean a lot to Democrats. But guess what? The majority of Republicans just
don't care. The election was won (again) on domestic issues and, most people agree, on "moral issues". The Democrats failed to take the high moral ground. They
let themselves be defined by the Republicans. They
reacted to smears and innuendo. They didn't act or seize the initiative. They were seen to be wishy-washy. For shame!! The DNC should all be sacked and someone who knows what they are doing should handle the next election.
This information would have made no difference to the election. In fact, this information is just a repeat of the Interim Report from September 2004. Didn't make much difference then, won't make much difference now.
Quote:
|
iit seems that the matter of sanctioning torture is different, in that it is a crime against humanity. that can, and should, be an impeachable offense. god knows it is far far more serious than a blowjob. i do not think that the matter of impeachment should be eliminated by calculations like the above, that you would end up with cheney. i think it is a matter of holding bush to account for his actions.
|
I agree. And I don't believe Bush would have been involved in sanctioning the actions in Abu Ghraib or Guatanamo Bay. As far as I know, it has been proven that this was Tenet, Rumsfeld and new AG designate (Rodriugez?).
Bush doesn't deserve to be impeached.
- He hasn't done anything impeachable
- Impeaching him would limit the freedom of subsequent Presidents
- Impeachment would set a dangerous precedent
and most importantly
- Bush is not WORTH using such a powerful tool
Just don't re-elect one of his cronies in four years time.
Mr Mephisto