Impeachment: Not Just for A.N.S.W.E.R. Anymore

Today, L.A. Times columnist Robert Scheer calls for the conditional impeachment of President Bush. Yesterday, hack cartoonist/columnist Ted Rall demanded unconditional impeachment and a war crimes tribunal. The idea first spilled out from the Ramsey Clark wilderness 11 days ago, when Watergate supporting actor John Dean broached the topic over at FindLaw. Since then, impeachment has been discussed by Copley News Service's James Goldsborough, Baltimore Sun columnist Jules Witcover, and letter-writers to scores of newspapers around the country.

Comments

[Typical DU socialist]

Wow, and to think I have been harping this issue since 2000. Ever since Chimpy stole the election I have been saying we should kick him out. What goes around comes around, repugs! Now it is nice to see so many MAINSTREAM people in favor of this!

[Todd Fletcher]

The left might not be winning elections lately, but they’re going gangbusters on their Campaign For Political Irrelevance – you go girls!

[joe]

This is crazy. Waging bad wars, misleading the public, abusing the intellgence function…these are all personal and political failures, not crimes. This is all political fodder for the opposition, not the stuff of impeachment.

Like Whitewater/Monicagate, there is no chance of this actually succeeding, but an excellent chance that it will generate sympathy for the president.

[Anonymous]

what goes around sure does come around. The stupidity of Clinton’s critics turned me into a “Clinton defender” and the same is now happening with Bush. Hard being a hater anymore.

[Billy Oblivion]

“This is crazy. Waging bad wars, misleading the public, abusing the intellgence function…these are all personal and political failures, not crimes. This is all political fodder for the opposition, not the stuff of impeachment.”

Are you talking about Kennedy, or Bush?

[Craig]

I’m sort of with Joe here.

Look: taking what is known within the public domain, the best case that you can make against Bush at this point is that he dramatically oversold the need for his desired policy, i.e. acted like a politician.

If we could impeach and remove from office any politician that oversold the need for a policy, there wouldn’t be very many left, if at all.

The association of the idea of impeachment with wingnuts like Clark doesn’t help either, any more than having anti-Clinton folks traced back to Scaife helped Republicans.

For impeachment to be politically successful (i.e., a winner at the polls), I believe that you’d have to show not only that Bush deliberately and knowingly lied to get the U.S. to invade Iraq, but that the end result was a negative one. Even if the former is possible (and it is still far from proven in any meaningful sense), the latter is unlikely to be provable unless Iraq goes completely to hell in a short time.

There are plenty of good reasons to defeat Bush at the polls in 2004. Bitterness over how he convinced people to overthrow a fascist probably won’t work.

I mean, really, is it that hard to write a platform based on freezing out the Sauds, not running up deficits, and otherwise attacking the flaws whose highlighting will make Bush less attractive to the center, in a way that won’t make you sound like you’re upset a fascist dictator got overthrown?

[dude]

You know, I think from now on every President is going to be impeached at some point. Clinton, Dubya, Clinton II (Hillary) . . . etc. I think Jeb might be in line after Hillary, God help us all.

[joe]

My parents hadn’t met yet, Gramps. Want me to put on some Rosemary Clooney?

[thoreau]

Let’s see: He used the powers of his office to deceive the public about life-and-death matters.

Nah, not impeachable. He was never under oath, so it’s OK for him to lie. And even though his lies may have endangered national security by getting us into an unnecessary war, there was no sex or frivolous lawsuit.

Gosh, Democrats are such a bunch of hypocrites. Don’t they see the difference between personal crimes committed by a bad person (Clinton), vs. crimes of state committed by the most righteous and God-fearing President ever?

(For the record, I wavered on impeachment but finally decided to support it when Clinton murdered Iraqis the night before the House voted to impeach. If I wanted a President who would kill foreigners to distract the public from scandals I’d vote Republican, dammit!)

[JDM]

dude,

It doesn’t seem likely. The Republican attempt to impeach Clinton was the best thing to happen to the Democrats since since Perot ran in 92. It’s hard to see how trying to impeach a popular president over an immensly popular war would help the Democrats.

[Undertoad]

My question to Ted Rall: dude, where’s the pipeline? Did they start building it yet? Are there plans on file? Are the caterpillars in place to cut swathes through the Afghani mountains? Where Is The Goddamn Pipeline Ted? If There Is No Pipeline, You Are A Liar, Ted.

[Anonymous]

you are a neocon Undertoad. you trotskyist struassian slime! how dare you spread your lies!

[joe]

Thoreau,

That makes him a shitty president, who should be stiffed on every political initiative he puts forward until he’s finally voted out of office. But impeachment isn’t a recall; it’s a quasi-criminal trial, and being a shitty president, even to the point of getting a lot of people killed, isn’t a crime.

Just as a court isn’t supposed to redo the job of the legislature, and an appeals court isn’t supposed to redo the job of a jury, impeachment isn’t there to redo the job of the voters.

Scream, yell, bang pots and pans, keep this in the news for the next year and a half – but lay off the impeachment.

[Jough]

Sexual harrassment by a superior is not a crime. If I want to see my secretaries titties – thats my concern. The stupid bitch can quit if she doesn’t like it. And if some other bimbo (#5?) blabs to anyone who will listen, I can have my pals spread stories of her mental incapacity – that is, right up till the moment they come up with some DNA evidence.

Inflating the value of your assets to gain business loans is not a real crime either. After the default, the American taxpayers and the little guy can cover the losses, while I stand to gain a fortune.

Funny how Clinton(s) acted just as liberals imagine Republicans to be (sexist and greedy), yet the left bends over backwards to not find any fault.

None of this exonerates Bush (not that he needs exonerating at this time), but pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the clueless is always fun…

[thoreau]

Joe-

Is there any point at which the lying becomes impeachable?

If he was simply wrong but he was too dumb to realize it (he is, after all, a government employee) then I guess impeachment is too harsh.

What if (hypothetically, of course) it came out that he said to aides “I don’t give a damm what the facts are, I want to invade Iraq and I’ll invent evidence if I have to. We’re doing this, even if he isn’t a real threat to the US.” Would that be impeachable?

Obviously it’s very unlikely that any such revelation would ever come out, but as a matter of principle I’m trying to explore the question of what would or would not be impeachable. We can’t hold leaders to any sort of standard if we don’t know what the standards should be.

[Jough]

BTW, I voted for Brown, like every good Libertarian.

[thoreau]

I voted for Browne as well, and I want Bush impeached for deliberately lying to the American people and the Congress in order to start a war that wasn’t necessary for the security of the United States.

[Madog]

I voted for Gore because it would appear I’m an idiot. Still, at least I didn’t vote for Bush.

[joe]

Thoreau,

Cite me a law. If Bush sent out mailings to little old ladies saying he’d refinance their cottages with no closing fee, then slapped on a closing fee, that lie would be impeachable, because there is a law on the books against fraud. Is there a law saying the president can’t mislead the public on what is contained in classified intelligence documents?

Jough,

Isn’t it vaguely possible that someone could differentiate between lying about one’s private life and lying about affairs of state? Or are you one of those Santorum types, who doesn’t think there is any such thing as a private sphere that government doesn’t belong in?

[Lazarus]

” wasn’t necessary for the security of the United States.”

[Lazarus]

” wasn’t necessary for the security of the United States.”

(cough)

[Anonymous]

Impeachment or murder?

Murder is fast, cheap. Impeachment is slow, expensive. Same results either way.

Impeachment, the American Way.

[Warren]

Y’all are missing the point. An impeachment proceeding will be entertaining. That is why we should all be clamoring for it, because it will be fun. And while they’re busy impeaching and defending they’ll have less time for taxing, spending, killing etc. you know, governing.

[Anonymous]

If they had any balls, the Republicans would say ‘bring on the impeachment proceedings!” This would give them the chance to set up the overhead projecter & show exactly who was warning about Iraq’s WMD’s over the years:
Byrd, Kerry, Lieberman, Daschle, Clinton (both Fire & Ice), Gore, Boxer, Byrd, Gephardt, Blix, Chirac, Edwards, Kennedy, Feinstein, Albright and on and on.

[thoreau]

Joe-

I doubt there’s a specific law against what Bush did. However, impeachment doesn’t require a specific codified law to be broken. Egregious abuses of power will suffice. Federalist Number 65 makes it quite clear that impeachment is all about abuse of power and crimes of state, which may not fall under the normal criminal code.

And I realize that Presidents sometimes need to mislead the public about classified info for security reasons. For instance, the President might deny that the US has any agents inside a terrorist organization, or that military aircraft have certain capabilities. Such lies fall under the rubric of NOT tipping our hand, NOT revealing information. These actions are done so that we’ll be able to protect ourselves IF SOMEBODY ELSE starts a war.

But FAKING information, and doing it to INITIATE a war is a very different matter. It’s even worse when the CIA was saying that Iraq wouldn’t use weapons of mass destruction against the US unless we invaded (and even then only if Iraq did indeed have the weapons).

I know, the dire scenarios didn’t come true. The point is that we had nothing to gain and everything to lose from prosecuting this war. The President knew that, but he lied and led us into war anyway. That is a crime of state if ever there was such a thing.

[Anonymous]

We’ll also have great quotes about Iraq’s WMDs from Hussein himself, Scott “Wish I Were A Priest” Ritter, German Intelligence, Carl Levin, and Graham…..

[Anonymous]

Nothing to gain, hey? Somehow I don’t think Hussein will be working on a WMD program anytime soon & it sure looks like a lot of nasty Arab butchers are acting a lot more humble around the US.

[joe]

Spin, spin, spin anonymous operatives. The memo says to name as many Democrats who ever noticed an unconventional weapons program, so name ye shall.

So obedient, these Republicans.

[Tommy_Grand]

“The point is that we had nothing to gain and everything to lose from prosecuting this war.”

Nothing to gain? Put down the pipe. Look, it may not have be worth it, it may not have been justified, or legal, or moral, or whatever. The Iraq war may have been a bad idea given the balance of costs, risks, etc versus potential gains. But to suggest that there was NO UPSIDE to removing Saddam from power ASAFP demonstrates ignorace on a cosmic scale.

But hey – dont bother to admit that you overstated your case. Instead, vomit up a bunch of sophisms, qualifiers, and explanations.

[HH]

Lemme get this straight – under this scenario, Democrats will go from pointing to treason, etc. as the only impeachable offenses to claim that Clinton’s perjury and obstruction of justice (which toward the end a good many of them conceded) wasn’t impeachable to “it doesn’t have to be codified to be impeachable”… Nice.

[thoreau]

Tommy Grand-

OK, here come the qualifiers, etc. The US had nothing to gain from removing somebody who was never a threat to the US. Good things did indeed come of this war, but the US had nothing to gain. Now, not to sound like a cold-hearted b&stard who doesn’t care about the liberated Iraqis, but I want a higher standard than “good things came of it” before we go to war. I want to know if the US gains anything in the way of security.

HH: Who the hell ever said I’m a Democrat? Who ever said I was a Clinton defender? I said in an earlier post that I went back and forth on impeachment in 1998, but finally I got fed up with Clinton and decided he could go for all I care.

As for “doesn’t have to be codified”, is there a specific law against telling lies to justify actions that harm jeopardize national security? The Constitution says that “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” So Bush’s actions don’t fit that bill. And although he lied it wasn’t under oath. But he still told deliberate lies to get us into a war that did nothing to make us any safer.

I know, Iraq has possessed WMD in the past, but if our deterrence capabilities held the Soviets at bay, why wouldn’t they keep at bay a dictator who values power, values his own life, and has far less weaponry than the Soviets ever had? So I maintain we are not any safer than we were before the invasion.

[JDM]

thoreau,

“Good things did indeed come of this war, but the US had nothing to gain.”

This is really just a plain contradiction.

“But he still told deliberate lies to get us into a war that did nothing to make us any safer.”

What lies are you talking about? What do you think the effect of those lies was?

Here’s a quoute from the Washington Post from an article of about a poll dated March 21st:

“A slight majority — 53 percent — said the war would be justified even if troops failed to uncover weapons of mass destruction.”

No one doubted that the weapons were there. No rational person anyway. Every nation in the world believed Hussein to be in possesion of WMD, and rational analysis supported that. Bush believed the analysis like most people without an axe to grind believed it, since it made a lot of sense.

[thoreau]

There’s no contradiction in saying that good things happened but not for us. The Iraqis are free. That is good. We are no safer than we were before. We gained nothing.

I am skeptical that Hussein was still in possession of WMD when we invaded (I know, he had them in the 80’s, but that was when he was still friends with Rumsfeld). If he had them, why didn’t he use them? He had nothing to lose at that point, since his defeat was a foregone conclusion. Might as well hurt the Americans.

Moreover, the US was quite insistent that we knew all about these WMD. If we knew so much, why haven’t we found anything? And why haven’t “Chemical Ali”, “Dr. Germ”, “Mrs. Anthrax”, and the other cutesy-named weapons scientists not given up info if usable weapons had been developed? If they say nothing we’ll hold them in Guantanomo until their skeletons are bleached by the sun. If they talk they stand to improve their lot in life, relative to their current conditions that is (current conditions being prison).

Moreover, a rational analysis indicates that the US had nothing to fear from Iraq if we didn’t invade. Hussein values his life and his power, and he was grooming his favorite son to be a dictator just like him (in a sick way, Hussein was a “good” father…). Attacking the US would jeopardize his life, his power, and his progeny. Giving weapons to terrorists would also jeopardize his life, power, and progeny. The scenarios for him would be:

Best case: The terrorists only use the weapons against the US, and nobody ever figures out Hussein was behind it (unlikely).

Bad Case: Terrorists, who hate Hussein’s secular regime, use some of the weapons here and some in Iraq. Even if we don’t trace it back to him, he has one hell of a mess on his hands.

Worse: The terrorists use weapons against the US, we trace it back to Hussein, he’s deposed and dead.

Still Worse Case: Terrorists, who hate Hussein’s secular regime, use the weapons against the US and freely admit where they got them, so we invade Iraq and take out the infidel for them.

Worst Case: Terrorists use some of the weapons against the US, others against Iraq, admit where they got them to provoke us into taking out the infidel, and Hussein is deposed and killed.

So a rational analysis says that we had nothing to fear. This war was unnecessary. If Bush failed to recognize this then at the very least his is manifestly incompetent to be commander-in-chief and derelict in his duties. More likely he did recognize this but wanted a war anyway, in which case he deliberately lied to the American people to get us into an unnecessary war.

[JDM]

Matt,

You’re putting Ted Rall in a list that is supposed to demonstrate that mainstream types are adopting an idea?

[JDM]

thoreau,

“We are no safer than we were before. We gained nothing.”

Collectively, we gained at the very least the one thing we could all collectively be said to have wanted to gain – the depostion of a tyrant. Given that nearly every American would have put the deposition of Hussein as a positive outcome of the war, and given that, ultimately, the American people are responsible for the war taking place, we can be said to have gotten out of it, at the very least, one of the things we wanted.

As for whether or not we are safer, consensus is impossible for any question so complicated, but the rationale for the invasion remains: terrorists hostile to the US are only truly dangerous if there are states willing to sponsor them, unwilling to aid the hunt for them, and willing to keep the US from coming after them. Whatever the number of terrorist generated by ill will (which I think is insignifigant, but the point remains even if it is not) they are immeasurably less dangerous than a smaller number of terrorists with state sponsors.

After the Iraq experience, do you think states are more or less likely to harbor terrorists?

[Tom]

Nice, post, JDM. Now let me put it in redstate-speak:

A bunch of people who didn’t like us are now dead and/or in no position to do anything bad to us. Case closed.

And those who carp about WMDs are the same whiny pussies who hated Bush before the drums of war started to beat.

[Matt Welch]

JDM — Rall ain’t remotely mainstream, but he (unlike Clark & his Milosevic-Apologist pals) is syndicated by the very mainstream Yahoo.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Oh yeah right this is going to happen. Maybe they’ll finally get around to impeaching Earl Warren while they’re at it.

[Anonymous]

So a sane or rational person only does what the US is OK with?

[joe]

I didn’t say Saddam was smart. What he has demonstrated was a large capacity for poor judgement – not an irrational decision making process.

Michael Dukakis decided to pose with his ACLU card and keep the helmet on. Is he irrational?

[Lefty]

Mr. Martin, here’s a link to some info on federal spending: http://www.federalbudget.com/

Nobody paid for this war – we borrowed it. In fact, interest on the debt now equals our military spending. The feds now have annual income of about 2 trillion a year and carries a debt of close to 7 trillion. And rising.

Your point that the upper 50% of taxpayers funded the war, or at least the interest on the money we borrowed to fund it, is valid. You should remember, though, that it’s the lower 50% that are doing the fighting.

[thoreau]

xlrq-

My understanding was the Iraq quietly approached the US to see if we would take military action in the event that Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Iraqi gov’t got the impression that, whether or not the US _liked_ the idea, the US would not take military action. So Saddam invaded, and then learned how mistaken he had been.

I’ve seen this story in multiple places, but I’ll have to dig to remember where and post the sources. I don’t expect anybody to believe me until I do, but I am curious where you heard Tariq Aziz say that Iraq (before invading Kuwait) knew the US would use military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.

As for Saddam being rational, I make the assumption that his henchmen were power-hungry, cold-blooded, murderous thugs. If he wasn’t rational he’d make bad decisions lead to one of them taking his job by force.

His decision to fight the US in Kuwait, once he was already there, was entirely rational. He went in thinking the fight wouldn’t happen, but once it did happen, he knew that simply folding under the pressure would make him look weak in the eyes of his subordinates and neighbors (e.g. Iran, Syria). His only hope was to put up a fight and then, after losing to the US, negotiate some sort of truce that would leave him in power. Sure, losing a war makes you look weak, but bowing out as soon as somebody threatens you looks worse, and losing to a superpower isn’t as disgraceful as losing to a weak neighbor.

And Saddam didn’t really choose the second war against the US. He concluded that the US was going to invade no matter what (and if one defends the war on the grounds that evil dictators should be overthrown, then getting rid of his WMD would not be sufficient grounds to cancel the war), so he decided to go out with some amount of dignity, by refusing to cooperate. Choosing to die in a particular manner is quite rational if somebody else has already decided to kill you.

[James Merritt]

I think Bush committed impeachable offenses, but with the full and public collusion of Congress (e.g., the sham of an “authorization to use force” rather than a real, constitutionally required declaration of war), so it is not in their interests to impeach him. I also think it would be a waste of time, effort, and money, provided that the people can show some backbone at the ballot box in 2004 (and assuming that the US electoral process is sufficiently uncorrupted as to indicate the public will with at least approximate accuracy).

A year ago, impeachment looked better to me. I even wrote letters to Bush, Cheney, and my elected officials in Washington that I would see the point of impeachment, were Bush to go to war without an official congressional declaration of war, and without making the case in the necessary pre-requisite congressional debate. Bush stepped over that line in the sand. If he wins in 2004, I think we ought to hold him to account in the court of impeachment. But at this point, the election will be a cheaper expedient, if it can be effective.

On the other hand, if an impeachment can distract congress away from “doing the people’s business” (as a pet does his business in the park, I imagine), then whatever millions it might cost, it could be worth the trouble… Anything to keep Mr. Hatch from making it legal for authorties to send a killer spike up the line to destroy a computer suspected of downloading material in violation of copyright… Truly, it isn’t just the warmongering President that we need to fear…

[Phil]

The single best, takes-on-all-comers argument against impeachment: If Bush is removed from office, Dick Cheney is President of the United States of America. So, go ahead and decide if that’s what you really want. (And on the off chance that Cheney were to be impeached and removed, it’s Ted Stevens, and then Dennis Hastert. Anyone filled with excitement at the idea of President Ted Stevens of Alaska?)

[thoreau]

Tom-

OK, so if a bunch of people don’t like us and we kill them, it’s a good thing.

Let’s invade Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, France, any part of Afghanistant where the warlords aren’t getting enough bribes, Germany, any part of England besides the few square feet occupied by Tony Blair, etc.

They don’t like us, and if they’re dead they won’t be able to hurt us.

OK, so I just want to know: If worrying about WMD is just whining because “those who carp about WMDs are the same whiny pussies who hated Bush before the drums of war started to beat” then what WAS the reason for the war? Was it to free oppressed people? If so, why not other places as well?

Was it to get rid of people who hate us? If so, why aren’t our tanks in Paris right now?

Was it to get rid of states that sponsor terrorism? If so, why did we go after a state that doesn’t sponsor terrorism against the US (deterrence is often as good as pre-emption)? How about, oh, let’s say, Pakistan? Before our invasion of Afghanistan (a war that I fully supported!) Musharaff described himself as being in a real dilemma, meaning he was a long-time buddy fo the Taliban.

Was it to eliminate the threat of WMD? If so, where are the WMD, and why was the President convinced that deterrence would not work?

Anyway, I just want to know. It’s easy to say “Oh, it all worked out, quit whining” when it all works out. But if we leap into conflicts just because we want to, some day it won’t work out. What do we then say to the families of those who died because our “leaders” didn’t thinking things through?

JDM- So, most of the American people wanted this war, most of the American people liked the outcome, and ALL of the American people were taxed to pay for it. Since this war was not NECESSARY for the security of the US (which is the only legitimate reason for a gov’t to go to war), I guess you’re saying the gov’t should step beyond its proper limited functions if enough people like the idea.

Wonder what you’ll say if a good snake-oil salesman ever packages socialized medicine in a form that a lot of Americans find palatable.

Oh, and before I forget, I’m sure somebody will call me a liberal for this post.

[bomb bomb]

Reality check people. W is not going to be impeached this term. And unless the Dems make significant gains in Congress in 2004, it ain’t gonna happen then either. Doesn’t matter how many reporters demand it. It will not happen.

[Xrlq]

“My understanding was the Iraq quietly approached the US to see if we would take military action in the event that Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Iraqi gov’t got the impression that, whether or not the US _liked_ the idea, the US would not take military action.”

That’s certainly the way the idiotarians portrayed it at the time, but it’s not what happened. What did happen, IIRC, was the Ambassador April Glaspie told the Iraqis that we had no position on Iraq’s border dispute with Kuwait. No one in his/her/its right mind could have taken that to mean the U.S. has no position on whether Kuwait should exist at all.

“I am curious where you heard Tariq Aziz say that Iraq (before invading Kuwait) knew the US would use military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.

He didn’t say military force per se, but he did say the Iraqis “knew the United States would have a strong reaction.”

“As for Saddam being rational, I make the assumption that his henchmen were power-hungry, cold-blooded, murderous thugs. If he wasn’t rational he’d make bad decisions lead to one of them taking his job by force.”

That’s a pretty strained definition of “rational,” which practically any despot would meet. The only reason Saddam didn’t get knocked out of power long ago was that he had a system of bumping off just about anybody who was anybody or who showed any signs of becoming anybody. That did have a rational component, at some level, but a more rational dictator would probably have acted more surgically against the few who posed a real threat to him, meanwhile generating more loyalty among those who didn’t. And even a marginally more rational version of Saddam would have easily averted the war of liberation, and would still be in power today.

“His decision to fight the US in Kuwait, once he was already there, was entirely rational.”

Only if he had a crystal ball and knew that we lacked the political will to oust him at the time. I think that was more of a lucky guess on his part. A rational Saddam would have negotiated some face-saving excuse to declare “victory” in Kuwait and get out before we invaded. Rational-Saddam probably would have also known better than to take scores of innocent foreigners hostage in the meantime, and if even if he did take them hostage, he certainly would not have let them go before the war.

“And Saddam didn’t really choose the second war against the US.”

Of course he did. It’s not as though the U.S. held a gun to his head and forced him to flout all those pesky U.N. resolutions.

[Anonymous]

Joe, to your question:

“Isn’t it vaguely possible that someone could differentiate between lying about one’s private life and lying about affairs of state?”

I’d think someone could make that distinction, but a defendant’s personal life becomes relevant in a sex case (his personal life ends where hers begins – interpersonal). I think the more proper distinction would be between lying about one’s sexual history leading up to a criminal act (Clinton) and lying about affairs of state (Bush Jr., if proven)

Sexually harassing your subordinates will get you into the embarassing situation of having to answer questions concerning your past sexual history. Is it OK to lie about one’s private life when a judge/jury is trying to examine a pattern of sexual behavior relating to a sex crime? (maybe its best to lie if you can get away with it, but its not officially OK to do so) The “its just about sex” argument makes sense if you support the weakening of sexual harassment laws.

[fyodor]

“His decision to fight the US in Kuwait, once he was already there, was entirely rational.”

Saddam once said that he’d prefer a military defeat to a political defeat, which would be in keeping with his decision to go to war both times rather than back down.

[joe]

Taking a chance, when the potential payoff is big enough and the damage wrought by coming up short is expected to be minimal, can be a very rational thing to do.

[Lefty]

I’m sure you’re rushing to sign up, Gil.

[Lefty]

And Gil, is it just a coincidence that we ran up 600 billion in deficits in the last two years? And three years ago the budget was balanced?

I think this is the same time we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (and have neither OBL nor Saddam to show for it) and equals either our defense budget or our interest on the debt – take your pick. At least the money we spend at home goes to our citizens, fuels the economy and doesn’t blow anybody up.

[Anonymous]

count how many fallacies in thoreau’s post,,,its fun!

[Tom]

Thoreau,

I think having our tanks in Paris right now is a damn fine idea.

[JDM]

thoreau,

You’re talking about 2 separate things. You said Americans got nothing out of it. We got a world with 1 less middle eastern dictator, which it is clear everybody wanted, even if they didn’t want a war.

As for constitutionality, there is no clause in the constitution that says the US has to go to war only to increase security. Jefferson, for example, was keen on joining the French revolution, though we never did. Madison (who wrote much of the constitution, incidentally)started the War of 1812 primarily to conquer Canada.

Aside from that, you didn’t address my argument for why the US is more secure. The French are not going to oppose US efforts to break up terrorists, whatever the polls show public opinion of Bush to be. The Syrians, for example, would have, and are now more likely to.

“Wonder what you’ll say if a good snake-oil salesman ever packages socialized medicine in a form that a lot of Americans find palatable.”

I’d say “Socialized medical will be a disaster, it’s a bad idea.”

[JDM]

…The Syrians, for example, would have, and are now *less* likely to…

[thoreau]

I’m still waiting for somebody to address my argument that Saddam Hussein never would have threatened the US, because doing so would have been against his best interests.

[Xrlq]

I’ll bet that exaggerating a foreign threat to justify a war is an impeachable offense under the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s version of the Constitution.

[Xrlq]

“I’m still waiting for somebody to address my argument that Saddam Hussein never would have threatened the US, because doing so would have been against his best interests.”

Rational Saddam Theory, eh? You are kidding, right?

[joe]

Actually, Xrlq, the CIA’s profile on Saddam concluded that he was cruel, wily, power hunger, and sane. He “made sure” that the US wouldn’t interfere before he invaded Kuwait, and Iran before it. Rational doesn’t always mean nice.

[Anonymous]

“We got a world with 1 less middle eastern dictator,”

That’s like taking one grain of sand off the beach.

[Xrlq]

Even Tariq Aziz admits that Iraq knew the U.S. wasn’t OK with his invading Kuwait. He also fought an unwinnable war against Iran, to say nothing of two wars against the world’s only superpower. If that’s your idea of a sane or rational person, I’d hate to encounter someone you consider insane or irrational.

[Gilbert Martin]

“Should we just assume that you’re leaving Clinton/Kerry/Benson/Reuben out of the category “liberal Democrats?” You know, that whole actually-balancing-the-budget thing?”

Why should I leave any of them out of that category? Not a single one of them ACTUALLY had one damn thing to do with balancing ANY budget.

[Eric E. Coe]

Lefty: The majority of the Federal government’s budget has always been transfer payments of one kind or another (welfare, etc.) ever since the New Deal. And transfer payments, where Peter is robbed to pay Paul, does not “fuel the economy” in any way at all – since Peter is spending the money Paul would have spent. It’s mostly a wash – except for the administrative costs, which are nearly a total loss.

James Merrit: I have heard you rant and rave about “Bush Lied” in several blogs – All I can say is “BS”. First of all, the congressional resolution that Bush obtained fufilled the constitutional requirement (it said so in the resolution by explicitly mentioning the War Powers Act) – that labeling non-issue is a tired red herring. The WMD threat is still a threat, and no lie, the issues before we went in are still there, and now we have a new worry – did all the futzing around with the useless UN give Saddam too much time to prepare? Remember this is the same guy who sent his entire Air Force to Iran for safekeeping (and never got it back) – where did he send the WMD’s? Who has them now?

But instead of seeing the danger, the lefty idiotarians insist on screaming “Bush Lied”, on no evidence except their pre-existing Bush hate. So narrow, so partisan, so stupid, so blind to ignore the danger. We are still at war, the war won’t end until the Islamists are destroyed (or we are). And all they can do is criticize the President for adressing the danger. Maybe the President made a mistake – all war leaders do. All we can hope is that it isn’t a critical mistake. So if you have something constructive to say, something that prosecutes the war in a more effective fashion then the Administration’s program, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, get lost.

I certianly hope we don’t ever waste any more critical time like this with the UN ever again.

[joe]

Gil,

“Kerry” was supposed to be Gore. Oh my.

And all the weaseling in the world can’t undo one unimpeachable fact; the Democrats wrote, and passed on their own, the most fiscally responsible federal budget since Vietnam heated up.

[joe]

Gil,

Should we just assume that you’re leaving Clinton/Kerry/Benson/Reuben out of the category “liberal Democrats?” You know, that whole actually-balancing-the-budget thing?

[joe]

Gil, fiscal responsibility isn’t about whether you like certain programs. It’s about keeping yourself out of debt, or taking on only as much debt as you can responsibly handle. The Clinton budgets did that. The last couple of Bush 41 budgets did it as well. And since the mid60s, that’s it.

You say the booming economy raised tax receipts, creating balanced budgets. How many states responded to those increased receipts with huge new spending? There was pressure on Clinton to do the same thing, but he chose deficit reduction instead. You don’t have to accept every element of his political program to recognize that his spending was much more responsible than Reagan’s. I don’t support Bush 41’s agenda, but his budgets were more responsible than Carter’s.

[Jeon Aeli]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://soccer-online-gambling.best-gambling.biz
DATE: 01/20/2004 11:38:50
Ain’t no disgrace to be poor – but might as well be.