Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - NyTimes Downplays Premise That Evidence to Justify Impeachment of Bush is Available.

roachboy · 06-17-2005, 06:09 AM

ranger:

moving away from the previous tonal register.
let's see if this works.

two points/questions:

1. in the strict sense--sadly--you are right. there seems to be no recourse for what i see as an outcome shaped by hysteria (the congressional approval of bushwar).

the question of whether the approval was rooted in false premises is, from ths viewpoint, a political rather than directly legal one.

the argument that i was making above actually converges with yours in a backhanded way: there will be no hearing, no process, no impeachment--not because there are not problems, not because there are not a thousand reasons that the bush squad should be held to account, but simply because there is no possibility that the congress would initiate it (as over against the clinton thing--the point there was that initiating impeachment is a purely political move.)

you appear to be fine with that, from your responses.

i would argue that this possibility--that hysteria can override normal checks and result in launching a war on false pretenses---is a significant political problem that should require a political response. surely you would concede--were you to consider the matter--that if one were to find the case against bushwar compelling, that teh call for some type of serious response, some type of serious censure of the responsable parties within the bush administration--would follow.

2. it is hard to tell from your post which claims support which:

does your dismissal of the mountain of proof that the administration cooked intel, bent information, concocted rationales for war condition your argument about legality, or does your position on legality lead you to dismiss everything that contradicts the administration's case for war?

this is the question around which assumptions as to your politics turned.
i confess that i assumed you worked from the first position.
but i could have been wrong and maybe you work from the second in that your initial post was directed primarily at the logic of host's opening (insofar as you saw impeachment to be a type of fantasy).

if you read your post from the first viewpoint, then you work from a more or less standard conserviatve ideological position and it is perfectly reasonable to associate that position with its sources, and to switch from discussing your particular variant of that ideology to the ideology itself.

if it is the second that informs your post, then things are otherwise--in that you could be talking from a variety of positions--and i would apologize for the flourishes in my response.

so which is it?

06-17-2005, 06:09 AM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ranger: moving away from the previous tonal register. let's see if this works. two points/questions: 1. in the strict sense--sadly--you are right. there seems to be no recourse for what i see as an outcome shaped by hysteria (the congressional approval of bushwar). the question of whether the approval was rooted in false premises is, from ths viewpoint, a political rather than directly legal one. the argument that i was making above actually converges with yours in a backhanded way: there will be no hearing, no process, no impeachment--not because there are not problems, not because there are not a thousand reasons that the bush squad should be held to account, but simply because there is no possibility that the congress would initiate it (as over against the clinton thing--the point there was that initiating impeachment is a purely political move.) you appear to be fine with that, from your responses. i would argue that this possibility--that hysteria can override normal checks and result in launching a war on false pretenses---is a significant political problem that should require a political response. surely you would concede--were you to consider the matter--that if one were to find the case against bushwar compelling, that teh call for some type of serious response, some type of serious censure of the responsable parties within the bush administration--would follow. 2. it is hard to tell from your post which claims support which: does your dismissal of the mountain of proof that the administration cooked intel, bent information, concocted rationales for war condition your argument about legality, or does your position on legality lead you to dismiss everything that contradicts the administration's case for war? this is the question around which assumptions as to your politics turned. i confess that i assumed you worked from the first position. but i could have been wrong and maybe you work from the second in that your initial post was directed primarily at the logic of host's opening (insofar as you saw impeachment to be a type of fantasy). if you read your post from the first viewpoint, then you work from a more or less standard conserviatve ideological position and it is perfectly reasonable to associate that position with its sources, and to switch from discussing your particular variant of that ideology to the ideology itself. if it is the second that informs your post, then things are otherwise--in that you could be talking from a variety of positions--and i would apologize for the flourishes in my response. so which is it? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite