Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ottopilot
Impeach, prosecute, go get the bastard. Sound familiar? If there's such overwhelming evidence of laws broken, then the justice system should have no problem wrapping this one up ... have at 'em. Perhaps the ACLU has a strongly worded report that can be cited until then, or more hand wringing and voicing of feelings should continue to replace the evidence available to everyone. Until then, you'll just have to live through Bush's last few months in office.
|
Otto.....as Host noted, the issues I raised about what many in country consider Bush's illegal, immoral, unethical and irresponsible actions, have little to do with the issue of impeachment and nothing to do with the ACLU....in fact three of the four are not impeachable offenses.
IMO, they are simply examples of immoral, unethical and irresponsible actions that make Bush's presidency controversial.
The problem is, that by attempting to divert the discussion to impeachment and the ACLU, I still have no idea where you stand on those examples of Bush's actions and the issue of the OP......do you support those actions? do you think its fair or unreasonable for some to think they contribute to Bush's presidency as being controversial?
As others observed, it appears to be a typical response mechanism to avoid discussing controversial issues about Bush....but at least you didnt raise the "but, but Clinton did x or other presidents did y" flag...another popular defense and deflection response we see all too often.
***
An afterthought on impeachment, since you raised the issue.
I strongly believe the approval of warrantless wiretaps and torture are impeachable offenses.
Many here (and in the public) are outraged at the Dems for not initiating an impeachment inquiry...and others her (and in the public) on the other side use as that as a means of dodging the issue at hand.
But I have not called for impeachment as loudly as others, because I thought the results would be predictable.
Here is why...even if the Dems started an impeachment inquiry in the House immediately upon assuming control of the House last Jan, we would likely be at a standstill even now, more than a year later.
That is evident from how the Bush administration has responded to simple oversight hearings....withholding (or destroying) documents, refusing to allow persons to testify under oath, ignoring subpoenas, etc., and most of all, the unwillingness of the AG to uphold the law, rather than act as the president's attorney.
Most likely, it would have ended up in the courts (requiring Bush to provide documents to Congress) where Bush would have further stalled it with various court filings...then ultimately bumping it up to the USSC on appeal if he lost at the lower court level.. until he was out of office (which is the likely outcome of the current "contempt of congress" charges filed in the federal court by the Dems in the House against several Bush officials early this year).
And, if by chance, articles of impeachment actually came to a vote in the Senate, the likelihood of 15 Republican Senators voting "guilty" would be slim to none, IMO.
I happen to agree with Pelosi...impeachment would have been unproductive and the only result would have been to further divide an already fractious nation.
I strongly support continued oversight hearings on numerous questionable Bush policies and actions, even as Bush supporters continue to characterize such hearing as "fishing expeditions."
If the facts get out, the public benefits and can make their own judgments. My hope is that the public is more objective than some of the Bush supporters here.