Why wait for history to judge? Impeach him now.
Posted on:: November 2nd, 2005
Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega in The Nation calls for the impeachment of Pres. Bush. Well, she actually calls for investigations that, if they were to be carried out fairly, would inevitably lead to his impeachment. (Am I prejudging the results of those investigations? Damn right.)
I know he’s not going to be impeached, much less be removed from office. But for the sake of democracy, as well as for our standing in the world, we need to show that we think lying to get us into a war is a more serious offense than lying about blow jobs. [Tags: GeorgeBush politics]
Categories: Uncategorized dw
You might consider just how well the Republican war against President Clinton worked out for Republicans (see: the 1998 election) before you decide that a similar Democratic campaign against Bush is the best idea.
Also, you might look at Gingrich’s shutdown of the govt (and how well that worked out for Republicans) before you think of Reid’s attempted shutdown of the Senate as a good idea.
I think any investigation will show that nobody actually lied. I think it is clear that they manipulated available information in a way that led people to believe the things they wanted them to believe.
Basically, it was a marketing effort.
Kind of like, you know, why “authority” without “responsibility” isn’t really a big deal when it’s all just “marketing.”
Maybe there weren’t WMD in Iraq, but, you know, there should have been.
Kind of like markets should be conversations.
We’ve lost the ability to think critically and rationally because we rely on the careless and reckless use of language to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. And marketers are the most adept people at that, and I don’t see the practice ever going away. It’s become part of the way we think. Even I do it, because I enjoy feeling “clever” too. Now it’s so “hip” and “cool” to offer buzzy new expressions like “markets are conversations,” “knowledge is conversations,” and “everything is miscellaneous.” Which, to me, is a perfect rationalization for teaching Intelligent Design in science class. Little thoughtless soundbites meant to overturn hierarchies, but instead leave chaos, confusion, misunderstanding and suffering in their wake.
We get what we deserve.
Just my opinion.
James, are you equating Reid’s taking the Senate into closed session for a couple of hours with Gingrich’s quite literal shutdown of the government? Seems like a stretch to me. As for how impeachment worked out for the Republicans, my point wasn’t that this would be good for the Democrats but that it would be good for our standing in the world and for our children.
Dave, I think people knew the truth and said something other. That’s not marketing. It’s lying.
If you think they didn’t lie, then let’s have the investigation and find out.
I point out that lying is sometimes a part of marketing as well.
I don’t think you’ll find anyone who’ll claim they knew “the truth” because there would be no way to “prove” it. We’ve already heard the disclaimer that the Clinton administration believed Saddam had WMD, and many other foreign governments believed he had WMD as well.
That belief was conventient, and could be reinforced on the basis of intelligence that would not normally meet the criteria for good intelligence. There may even be some basis for believing that was a reasonable thing to do, given how surprised we were, following the first Gulf War, at the extent of Iraq’s WMD programs. Our intelligence had not known the “truth” of those programs. So it simply becomes a matter of exploiting ignorance and fear, which is not lying, not illegal, and is a fairly common marketing practice. “Billions of germs are on your counter top, right now! Use new germ-killing Ajax with anti-microbial agents and a fresh lemon scent and keep your family safe!”
But by all means, we should investigate. Maybe you’ll be able to create a marketing plan for the results of the investigation that will yield the set of beliefs you desire.
You miss two things:
1) Hussein had chemical weapons in the past, and used them – against foreign and domestic enemies
2) There was a 1 year run up to the war, as we worked through the UN process (some rush job, hmm). During that time, gosh knows what got trucked to the Baathists in Syria.
3) Even if Iraq was WMD free in 2002, we know that Huessin was funding suicide bombers at $25k a pop, and that we was buying influence in France, Russia, Germany, the US, and elsewhere (Oil for Food).
4) WMD wasn’t the sole (or even the first) rationale for the war. The first was the (multiple) violations of the 1992 cease-fire agreement. We know what children do when we make threats that we never carry through; we also know what nations do (the failure of France and the UK to enforce the Versailles treaty in 1936 being the best example).
Congress – including most Democrats – voted for war in 2002. In order for you to believe that they were somehow misled, you would have to ignore everything that former President Clinton said about Iraq from 1997 forward. It’s not as if any of the issues we settled via invasion were new; they had been simmering since the mid 90s.
Ultimately, we cast the die in 1992, when we decided not to topple the regime – leaving a wounded enemy in place is never a good idea, because revenge is always going to be in their mind. And you know why we didn’t topple him then? Because we did it the multi-lateral way, with all the strings that it entailed.
Just because I’m in a foul mood, and though I know this is a pointless exercise in futility, allow me to point out the following:
1. Lots of countries have WMD, some have even used them in the past, including the US. It has never been a basis for initiating a war.
2. The 1 year “run up” to the war was filled with “running up.” Basically the machinery was set in motion while at the same time the administration was asserting that they hoped war could be avoided. To the extent there was a “lie” in this endeavor, that was it. Though, again, I don’t believe anyone could “prove” it beyond the shadow of a doubt. Basically, the conflict started as early as it possibly could, given the logistics involved and the nature of the physical environment in the theater. The diplomatic efforts in the “run-up” to the war were, in my opinion, distractions to push aside more meaningful efforts to debate the wisdom of an actual war.
3. Syria and Iran support terrorist efforts. Do you support invasions of either or both of those nations on the basis of their support for terrorism?
4. WMD was the keystone in the administration’s case for war. Without it, I don’t think they would have had a credible case in any way shape or form. Everything offered since then has been rationalization, and is utterly beside the point because we had no debate about those issues (Bringing democracy to the middle east being the one that seems to be trotted out most frequently.)
Congress, to be accurate, voted to authorize the president to use force as a last resort. It was a shameful abdication of responsiblity and a meaningless resolution that did little more than to provide political cover for both sides in the debate.
What issues have been “settled” since the invasion? Nothing has been “settled” that I can determine, with the exception of the non-existence of WMD and Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Both of which may be “goods” in and of themselves, but they must be weighed against the larger context of the situation.
Iraq and the region as a whole is now less stable. There is at least a strong possiblity that Iran will be an even more powerful force in the region. More than 2000 Americans have died and thousands more maimed and wounded in the effort, and I don’t know how many Iraqis have been killed. It’s interesting that we seemed to be very up to date on the number of people Saddam Hussein had killed in his regime, but we can’t seem to keep track of the number of people we’re responsible for killing. The prisoner abuse cases have done nothing to enhance the image of the nation anywhere in the world. We’ve strained relations with some of our closest allies to no good effect. To say nothing of the hundreds of billions of dollars this whole experiment has cost, despite the mistaken (not to say “fabricated”) assertions by the administration that this whole enterprise could be done on the cheap and basically “pay for itself” with Iraqi oil revenue.
If Iraq were to emerge as a modern secular state, with reasonable protections for the rights of women and minorities, and able to govern itself without outside influence from either the US or regional powers, then perhaps this effort might be said to have been worth it. It is perhaps too soon to tell, but from what we’ve been able to observe to date, there seems little reason to give the administration the benefit of the doubt.
The one reason I was happy that George Bush was reelected is because if this turns out to be the catastrophic debacle it has given every indication of being to date, the responsbility will rest squarely with this president and the ideologues he surrounded himself with, and perhaps we may draw some meaningful lessons from that.
1) Outside of radical spots like North Korea, Iran, (former) Iraq, and Syria, WMD are not really a problem. I’ve not once worried that the Chinese or Indians would launch at us, nor do they fear the reverse. I do worry about the nut countries passing bombs to terrorists though
2)The war was justified solely by the treaty violations. The run up was about getting as much political backing as possible. Additionally, that time we spent gave Iraq time to hide any WMD they did have
3) Iran and Syria. I’ve though that we should have hit Syria a long time ago. As to Iran – either we try to take their nukes out, or Israel will. It’s all a matter of which you think will be less messy. If you think Israel is going to sit still and let Iran pass nukes to Hamas or Hezbollah (which they would do in a heartbeat), you’re naive.
Stability wasn’t th epoint of this exercise. We’ve had “stability” in that region for decades, and it hasn’t been helpful.
4)WMD was one of many justifications. It got more verbiage solely because it was perceived to be the easiest way to get the UN to sign on. As it happens, too many of the players at the UN had been bought off by Oil for Food money.
Hello
I see pretty good a website, great job !
Regards from sexchat
Impeach Bush yourself! That’s right. This is much more than just a petition.
There’s a little known and rarely used clause of the in the rules for
the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in
which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary
Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that
happens, someone has to initiate the process.
That’s where we come in. One of the ways to get impeachment going is
for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial.
ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was
successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find
it on their website as a PDF.
You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the
memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your
name, state, etc.), and sending it in.
http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html
More information on the precedent for submitting an impeachment
memorial, and the House Rules on this procedure, can also be found at
the above address.
If you have any doubts that Bush has committed crimes warranting
impeachment, read this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/evidence/
If you’re concerned that impeachment might not be the best strategy
at this point, read the
bottom of this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/
It just takes a minute to save our democracy.