|
my plan is to track down some of the books cited in the nytimes review above to see about the extent of sanctioning of torture (by which i mean the admnistrative levels that sanctioned it---we know already the ag, rumsfeld, the highest levels of the military command. but it is, after all, bush's responsibility, and you will not convince me that he did not condone these practices. but i have not seen a smoking gun, so to speak. my interest in the word impeachment is, again, directly tied to this matter.
as for the question of the war, in general i actually agree with you, mr mephisto, in your last post. i do however have trouble maintaining sang froid about it. maybe because i have to live here. and i do not find it a good thing at all, for anyone, that any administration is allowed (explicitly or implicitly) to lie to the public about the reasons for war. i would have said the same thing about johnson had he run for, then been elected to, a second term as a function of the tonkin gulf fantasy.
except on one point: i am not sure i buy the idea that lying to the public about war is or should be part of the presidents "freedom" to exercize power. i am not sure of the precedent. but the bottom line is that i would consider torture to be the issue around which a cogent argument for impeachment could be elaborated.
given the appalling way in which this administration has carried out damage control, i think that the counter argument would be that impeachment would be tantamount to a judicial coup d'etat. well, so be it.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|