Case for Impeachment?

Published on December 16, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

The difference between Bush lies and Clinton’s is a matter of lying under oath. Clearly Bush didn’t. His only oath was to uphold the Constitution as President and Commander in chief. He had done that by going, however reluctantly, to Congress for approval, which he received regardless of the underlying nuances. Still, he did go to the UN for further acceptance, in one respect it was an ultimatum.

The irony of all this is that he did not as commander in chief need do either; for, the cease-fire of the Gulf War had been violated many times and it would have been his right to police the cease fire of an existing war, ending once and for all unending infractions with the strategy to force an unconditional surrender and unseat Saddam from power. However, a dictator’s obduracy is insufficient grounds to invade a country under these circumstances, lest Bush really look like a warmonger. Thus, he chose the path of unbelievable pre-conditioned deception in exaggerating and dramatizing the threat.

Notwithstanding this deception, it is not impeachable, even if deliberate, which it was, because Bush could easily claim that the disinformation was to confuse the enemy in Iraq, not — lest the strategy be leaked — the Congress and the American people. Nor is incompetence reason for impeachment — in this case clearly exposed — as Lincoln was thought of as incompetent in the early years of the Civil War until he routinely fired his generals until he found the right one. Bush could have been Lincolnesque except he is loyal to a fault to those who slavishly follow his commands and feed him misinformation on the status of combat, just as he had intensely misled them for the invasion in the first place.

Accountability also is unimpeachable, even though he admits he was misled by Intelligence but would have gone to war anyway! And he would quickly point out that John Kerry said the same thing!

Besides, whatever the motivation for war — oil, humanitarian, neo-con pressure, his image of the bullhorn fading, or simply to spite his father — his defense against impeachment is convincing because he cannot be held accountable for the unaccountability of the real demons, Congress and the American people, for embarrassingly not seeing through the duplicity.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 1)

Daiwa

on Dec 16, 2005

What the...? You try to write an article which pretends to be reasonable and completely undermine your reasonableness with the very first sentence.

This is nothing but a dressed up regurgitation of DNC talking points, none of which are quite accurate.

It amazes me how otherwise intelligent people buy into this "Bush Lied" & "duplicity" crap. The people making this "We, the Congress and the leaders of the rest of the free world were duped by the most heinous of deceptions perpetrated by the evil Bush" claim are the same people who've been claiming forever that he's no brighter than J. Fred Muggs, a drug-addled alcoholic frat boy barely able to tie his own shoes who is "not liked" by foreign leaders. Christ, I wish the left would make up its mind.

And now we have the "He's unimpeachable, but if there was any justice in the world he'd be impeached" argument.

Cheers,
Daiwa

ParaTed2k

on Dec 16, 2005

I'm a little confused on something. You acknowledge that Bush had the authority to return to hostilities with the Hussein regime because of the broken ceasefire, but then you say that Hussein breaking the ceasefire wasn't sufficient grounds for invasion.

It's a pretty good article, but seems like a great example of duplicity itself.

stevendedalus

on Dec 16, 2005

Hussein breaking the ceasefire wasn't sufficient grounds for invasion.

It was indeed sufficient grounds from the aspect of commander in chief, but as president he had to drum stronger reasoning for the public at home.

stevendedalus

on Dec 16, 2005

And now we have the "He's unimpeachable

Exactly my point regardless of the deception.

if there was any justice in the world he'd be impeached" argument.

I in no way implied that. My position was clear that he had done no wrong,however indiscreet.

SSG Geezer

on Dec 18, 2005

I don't see the link in competence between the President and Lincoln.
general Franks did what was desired with less troops than anyone thought would be needed. The aftereffects were not was desired but please explain the connection for me.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 18, 2005

It was indeed sufficient grounds from the aspect of commander in chief, but as president he had to drum stronger reasoning for the public at home.

Ok, I see you're point there. For me, I wish he had have used the ceasefire as the main point. Less dramatic than the WMD, but would have silenced all the empty "pre-emptive" "illegal" or "unprovoked" arguments.

Of course, those who oppose freedom for Iraq would come up with some other lame arguments. Anything to make Bush look bad...

stevendedalus

on Dec 18, 2005

please explain the connection for me.

From the beginning when the Pentagon's Chief of Staff was forced into retirement by Rummy, Bush got false or over-optimistic estimates of the number of forces needed to do the job right.As soon as events turned for the worse, he should have cleaned the Pentagon house and substituted generals of "overwhelming force."

stevendedalus

on Dec 18, 2005

oppose freedom for Iraq

Who? Surely not, DEMS. Of course, there are always those who want a president to look bad, but in a time of war, no one should.

bakerstreet

on Dec 18, 2005

I think steven is trying to show the difference between technical legality and wise prudence. He grants Bush the technical legality, but shows that it wasn't done in a wise or prudent manner. With that, honestly, I would have to agree.

As was stated with Lincoln, though, when one is mired in the daily affairs of a nation, pulled left and right by interests tht don't care about your image, it is easy to overlook the prudent path. In the end I don't think Bush will be remembered with the same reverence as Lincoln, but maybe he'll be seen to have done something just in a less than prudent way, which is probably how we'd see Lincoln if we didn't grant him sainthood.

Lee1776

on Dec 18, 2005

From the beginning the when the Pentagon's Chief of Staff was forced into retirement by Rummy, Bush got false or over-optimistic estimates of the number of forces needed to do the job right.

Steve, that old line was false even before it was dreamed up. General Eric Shinseki became the Army Chief of Staff under Clinton in 1999 and served the standard four years to the month. He was replaced by General Schoomaker in 2003 right on the normal change over. Other Generals have severed for two years or less, but none have served over the four years since General Marshal from 1939 until 1945. The only abnormal event was that General Schoomaker was named to be General Shinseki's replacement one month earlier then normal, due to the fact that Schoomaker had already retired and had to be reprocessed back into service. He did not take up duties any earlier then his appointment date. Check it out, it is all here: Link To keep Shinseki would of been the abnormal event. This whole fired thing was a figment of someone's political propaganda imagination (can anyone say Michael Moore).

The only reason I know this for sure, is because there was a large percentage of the Army counting his departure days down, hoping that Schoomaker would get rid of the Blasted useless black beret, that Shinseki is despised for forcing on us. He is the only General in resent history that had to send out orders for his troops to stop criticizing him or his policies to the media. You could find it an Article 15 offence, just to have your name in a newspaper.

COL Gene

on Dec 18, 2005

Gen Franks sold out his convictions as to the troop levels needed to establish and maintain control in Iraq. When Gen Franks was perparing the op plan for the Iraq War, he called for 500,000 troops. Under pressure, he reduced that to 300,000 at the time Saddam fell from power.

When he agreed to invade Iraq with less then half the lower number of troops he said were required, GEN Franks sold out and became part of this disaster. There is much disagreement as to IF we should have invaded Iraq. There is NO disagreement that the way the war was fought was a BIG mistake that has caused the MAJORITY of American deaths and injuries. If we had had the troop levels needed, we would have prevented the growth of the terrorism that developed AFTER Saddam Fell and we disbanded the Iraqi Army.

Dr Guy

on Dec 18, 2005

Steven, I have to give you a interesting article! I like it very much! I think it is honest and forthright. I cannot give you an insightful as I do disagree with parts of it, but on the whole, as I have said before, you are the worst thing to happen to the republican party! Should you ever regain control of your party (you and like minded individuals) we would again have a 2 party system.

Well, reasoned, well stated. I disagree with some of your conclusions.

Two thumbs up!

stevendedalus

on Dec 19, 2005

Two thumbs up!

Screw the thumbs, where are my smiley faces!

The only reason I know this for sure, is because there was a large percentage of the Army counting his departure days down, hoping that Schoomaker would get rid of the Blasted useless black beret, that Shinseki is despised for forcing on us.

Well, how refreshing to hear the troops themselves were against those damnable China caps that resemble Saddam's palace guards! I hope someone dumps them--they look horrible unAmerican.

stevendedalus

on Dec 19, 2005

General Eric Shinseki became the Army Chief of Staff under Clinton in 1999 and served the standard four years to the month. He was replaced by General Schoomaker in 2003 right on the normal change over.

I'll grant you that, but he still had some months to go; perhaps it was just a coincidence that he left at the time his "250K-350K" insistence.

COL: Yeah, Franks became a Pentagon lackey, inlieu of sticking to his guns.

stevendedalus

on Dec 19, 2005

Well, the article was well worth it to have you on my side.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!