To Impeach or Not to Impeach
By Libby
As Michael notes in his post at The Reaction, with the call for impeachment having reached 39%, it can no longer be categorized as coming from the fringe elements. Matt Yglesias thinks it's time to start a conversation about it. I think it's long overdue myself and in fact have to ask if it's not already too late.
I keep going back and forth on the idea. On the one hand I think it would at least tie them up and one hopes would keep them too busy to cause any new trouble. On the other hand it would back them into a corner and they've demonstrated a proclivity to starting new trouble in order to shift the focus from their own criminiality. I'm not at all certain that our dastardly duo wouldn't do something crazy like bomb Iran to thwart it. One might think an event of that magnitude would squelch such talk and it's not like they haven't been floating dozens of dubious excuses to build support for a surgical strike.
I wish I could be as optimistic as John Conyers who has a poll that says 46% want Bush impeached and 58% want Cheney to be kicked out. He predicts the public pressure could force the White House to co-operate with the various investigations.
I think that's a fool's hope. They're not just being coy or even trying to build their executive privilege precedents. These two have committed crimes. If they co-operate, they will go to jail. Besides, even with polling like that Conyers still refuses to "put impeachment on the table." Public opinion doesn't mean jack if the Congress won't put their weight behind it.
My main problem is with the timing. I doubt impeachment could be completed before the end of Bush's term and so it would be a symbolic gesture. It might help our world standing some in the interim, since it would make clear to the international community that Bush does not speak for Americans, nor act on their behalf. But the only real value I see in it, is if it would force them both to resign.
In the end, I'm back to where started on this many months ago. We need to call for their resignations. Keith Olbermann started that ball rolling and I think all the people who are pushing for impeachment should pick it up and run with it. Maybe we can start impeachment proceedings to put the pressure on, but we should be asking Bush and Cheney to resign for the greater good of the nation.
[cross-posted to The Reaction]
As Michael notes in his post at The Reaction, with the call for impeachment having reached 39%, it can no longer be categorized as coming from the fringe elements. Matt Yglesias thinks it's time to start a conversation about it. I think it's long overdue myself and in fact have to ask if it's not already too late.
I keep going back and forth on the idea. On the one hand I think it would at least tie them up and one hopes would keep them too busy to cause any new trouble. On the other hand it would back them into a corner and they've demonstrated a proclivity to starting new trouble in order to shift the focus from their own criminiality. I'm not at all certain that our dastardly duo wouldn't do something crazy like bomb Iran to thwart it. One might think an event of that magnitude would squelch such talk and it's not like they haven't been floating dozens of dubious excuses to build support for a surgical strike.
I wish I could be as optimistic as John Conyers who has a poll that says 46% want Bush impeached and 58% want Cheney to be kicked out. He predicts the public pressure could force the White House to co-operate with the various investigations.
I think that's a fool's hope. They're not just being coy or even trying to build their executive privilege precedents. These two have committed crimes. If they co-operate, they will go to jail. Besides, even with polling like that Conyers still refuses to "put impeachment on the table." Public opinion doesn't mean jack if the Congress won't put their weight behind it.
My main problem is with the timing. I doubt impeachment could be completed before the end of Bush's term and so it would be a symbolic gesture. It might help our world standing some in the interim, since it would make clear to the international community that Bush does not speak for Americans, nor act on their behalf. But the only real value I see in it, is if it would force them both to resign.
In the end, I'm back to where started on this many months ago. We need to call for their resignations. Keith Olbermann started that ball rolling and I think all the people who are pushing for impeachment should pick it up and run with it. Maybe we can start impeachment proceedings to put the pressure on, but we should be asking Bush and Cheney to resign for the greater good of the nation.
[cross-posted to The Reaction]
Labels: Bush, Cheney, impeachment, Media
posted by Libby Spencer at 9:18 PM
37 Comments:
Hi Libby: It's funny you post about impeachment, and especially the Iglesias post: I jumped into that comment thread early, and I was just about the only one disagreeing. Impeachment is pure payback for Bush's politics, with little by way of a substantive case for removal from office. Article II, Section 4, calls for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It's a fool's hope because there's no grounds for it. The case against Bush is sour grapes, politics by other means. It wasn't enough to win control of Congress last November, with all the endless congressional oversight --they want Bush and Cheney on the racks! I'm retiring for the night, but I'll stop by tomorrow to check your pithy rejoinder. That is, unless you're worn down by our last go 'round. You're a chivalrous debater, in any event!
Burkean Reflections
Oh Donald - Worn down? Hardly, but I have five blogs. I only have some much time on any given day for debate and I'm going to keep up my content.
You are so wrong but I'm working today and don't have time to explain why. I'll get back to you on this and the other post when I get a moment.
Impeachment is a pragmatic response to tyranny.
"Pragmatic" arguments are, increasingly, an obfuscation.
Excuse me, but where has all this "brilliant" Democratic strategizing gotten us in the last two decades?
Nowhere: Loss after loss after loss. So much for "smart."
Sometimes you really DO have to stand up and be counted. If ever there were a moment to stand up for impeachment, it is now.
Oh Libby - Five blogs? You can do better than that! Pop on in and leave comment at my place when things aren't overflowing! You have a reputation to maintain!
Burkean Reflections
Bush 's impeachment would take about a week. he has no support. the conservatives are half ready to impeach him themselves over immigration. only the beltway neo cons and the wmd's in syria nutjobs still support him. and niether of them are well known for their bravery
Justice itself is a fools hope, but when enough fools get behind it, it's sometimes possible. If all the Bush supporters have left as a strategy is a shrug; a casual dismissal of Bush's crimes, perhaps it's time for the ship of fools to weigh anchor, because the tide is with us and the wind is blowing.
Nixon would have been impeached for much lesser offenses had he not resigned and been pardoned and in fact all presidential impeachments involved charges that are just silly in comparison to Bush's lies, forgeries and unconstitutional acts.
If saying "please don't tell my wife" to his secretary can be called "subornation of perjury" and with a straight face, then what should I make of Bush's fabrications that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, destroyed a country, displaced millions and put world peace in jeopardy? His entire tenure has been about obstruction of justice and snotty comments about the Democrat's revenge by a party that's spent over 30 years trying to get revenge for Nixon's ouster just aren't sufficiently covered by the word 'ironic'
Care to enumerate the fabrications Bush has made? Or is that the "Bush lied, people died" line? I've heard it before. Impeachment should be reserved for grave constitutional crises. Even Nixon went the U.S. Supreme Court before handing over the tapes. The war was authorized democratically, with majorities in both chambers. The case for war was clear and complelling, and U.S. intelligence was matched for evidence from Britain, Germany, among others. Regime change was the predominant rationale for the war, announcement virtually the administration major speeches lobbying for the mission. Is that all this is about? That's so yesterday. It's sour grapes for the antiwar forces. Can't just actually win the majority in Congress and be satisfied, they've just got to pillory Bush/Cheney before their 18-month window closes.
Libby: You must be putting out a lot of content elsewhere. I understand: We wouldn't want your work product to decline, now would we? You do have a good debating spirit, if not the endurance, in any event!
Sorry for the typos in the previous entry, by the way. Clicked publish -- in my excitement! -- before I gave it a good proofread.
Mr. Douglas
I can't believe you are that excitable.
I was hoping after reading the entry that you had meant to hit 'delete'.
Hi Jim: This blog excites me. I click publish in my glee to distribute pure snarkiness!
Donald, send me the recipe for the koolaid you're drinking and maybe it will make your responses feel a little less pedestrian. If I want sloganeering and White House talking points, I'll subscribe to the RNC newsletter or read WaPo editorials. You've yet to offer an substantive argument since you've arrived. Perhaps you could start with a list of surge successes and include a list of Bush's accomplishments. That should take all of three minutes and you'll have plenty of time left for "snark." BTW, word up. I think by definition snark is supposed to be amusing.
Lester - if you think they could impeach the bastards in a week, you don't know much about the law. Even if the Congress was unanimous, it will take months because Bush will fight it.
Ed - I've been calling for impeachment since about 02 and seriously got behind it when DowningStMinutes formed. Nobody listened then, or least not enough and now I just think it's too late for it to have any real effect. I'm not against it as a symbolic gesture but I want these thugs out. I'm just being pragmatic.
I've been thinking a mass call for resignation might work. I'm willing to drop on my knees in front of the White House and beg them to leave.
Fogg, your way with words never fails to cheer me up. I'm ready to book a berth on the ship of fools but to what destination?
LOL Jim. I was thinking the same.
Libby: You're getting in the spirit! Snarky is snide asides, often delivered in a poking, funny way. There's your word up, sweetie. Actually, I'm waiting for your response to my analyses. You've forgotten your little immigration tizzy you threw, oui? Overall casualities are down in Iraq, with the recession of violence punctuated by extremely violent attacks, often outside the main areas of U.S. control, like the attack two days ago just south of the Kurdistan region. The terrorists are on the run, and they've been relagated to hitting soft targets. Pull out now and they'll be back in Baghdad, big time, to maim and slaughter any who want to consolidate the democratic regime. But you wouldn't mind that, right? It's cut-and-run, full steam ahead. Out of my way, John Murtha! The talking points are over here. But no rigorous method! Where's that case for impeachment you were gonna lay out? Nixon did lose at the Supreme Court, you know. Then he had to turn over the tapes to the Watergate prosecutors. He said he was above the law, and lost. The system worked. It didn't start there, though. There was a long line of subterranean dirty tricks. It ended with the resignation of president, as it should have. That said, I do see all the links you leave to the liberal Memeorandum bloggers guild. Hey, that's some respect, no? The RNC has yet to consult me. It's okay. I have a real job. Bush's economy is a success, in any case, but you've yet to address the issue. Where's the data to back up your claims to the contrary? Oh yeah, we've got the pesky income gap thingy. What explains it? Two-income households precede the Bush administration, not to mention the Clinton adminstration, by golly. Watcha gonna do? Evade and dodge my arguments all you want, babe. I guess you'll need to save whatever squishy claims you're making for that killer "content" on your "five blogs"! They do sound impressive! I'll be back! I wouldn't miss the next round for the life of me!
This is so yesterday? Is that the best you can do? Glib assertions aren't arguments and I don't agree that impeachment be reserved for grave constitutional crises, whatever you think those might be.
I don't have to enumerate his lies, members of his own administration have done so in enormous detail which I'm sure you know and I'm sure you will shrug off as meaningless or "yesterday," but again, shrugs and sneers in arch and condescending tones aren't arguments either. They're just expressions of an attitude I don't share, nor do the vast majority of our countrymen.
Fogg: Can you follow an argument? The debate over the war's origins are indeed yesterday's news -- that's the "Bush lied" reference. A "vast majority"? I haven't seen anything of the sort, except perhaps a couple of cooked polls showing popular support for impeachment, and that would be plurality levels (under 50 percent, no?) at that. Grave constitutional crises? You reject the point? Well, Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay might have said something about that around 1787-88. Wouldn't care to lug other your dog-eared copy of the Federalist, now would you? If you want to make the case for impeachment, let's hear it. Otherwise, it's just counter-condescension. (Or, liar, liar, pants-on-fire, doesn't cut it.)
Fogg - I do believe our Donald suffers from that cortical malfuction that blocks the part of the brain that governs reasoning when politics are discussed. I have the link on my other computer but this has been documented by a scientific study that shed some light on how Bush apologists can live with such extraordinary levels of cognitive dissonance.
I don't believe it's possible to make him see reason and for myself, I've decided not to try to engage him in reasoned debate. He clearly has too much time on his hands. Also, although I give him points for correct spelling and generally coherent sentence structure, I have a personal rule that I don't engage with people who refuse to put in paragraph breaks.
In any event, you're right of course. Donald represents a shrinking and ever more desperate an panicked minority.
Oh, poor Libby. That's a dodge if ever there was one. I think you've met your match, and now it's hands up in frustration and impotence. It's not paragraph breaks that are hindering you (provided below to facilitate comprehension), but the inability to make a countervailing argument. I've responded to your points, and corrected you where necessary, but you're drawing up blank!
Do brush up on your basic political philosophy. I've noted the errors or your argument regarding Bush's Machiavellian moment. You take a put-off-ish stance because, absent the intellectual firepower, your points carry little persuasive reach.
Alas, I overestimated your fortitude. But time is of the essence, of course, so I don't begrudge your immersion in the liberal echo chamber you inhabit. Though, I do hope you'll develop more evidentiary claims for your attempts at analysis. Belittling your opponents provides an nice veneer of superiority, but I don't think it can provide for human fulfillment and happiness. That death-like multiculturalism you espouse is a mind killer!
donald - "Overall casualities are down in Iraq, with the recession of violence punctuated by extremely violent attacks, often outside the main areas of U.S. control, like the attack two days ago just south of the Kurdistan region. The terrorists are on the run, and they've been relagated to hitting soft targets."
Do you realize the shellacing you'd get if yuo appeared on ,say, C SPAN with that rhetoric? overall attacks are down, punctuated by exteme violence? the terrorists are on the run?
this is our fifth summer in iraq. 5. no one wants to hear shit like "the terrorists are on the run". at all
So the Federalist papers are today, even though they're not part of our legal structure - and everything else, meaning everything you wish to dismiss by the power vested in you by yourself, is yesterday,
How quaint. I've seen poll numbers running over 50% but sure, let's just call it yesterday and snicker about my being unable to follow that convincing argument for dismissing the Bill of Rights you'll certainly be making any time now, I'm sure.
Perhaps I can't detect an argument, but your farrago of fatuous and fact-free fallacy doesn't require a bloodhound to follow. Any nose will do if it's not damaged by some long Rumsfeldian rectal sojourn.
Don't put slogans of your own choosing in my mouth and then pound your chest like some toddler in a Tarzan costume pretending victory. Leave that childishness to the President and his forty thieves.
If you're unaware of the violations of the constitution and the other abuses of office, oath and public trust, it's your fault and you don't make points by demanding evidence that's been abundantly published and broadcast by high level administration and military sources. Of course you're not unaware, you're just making an empty pose.
All we have from you so far is the oily assertion that the three quarters of the country who think Bush is incompetent and the nine tenths who think Cheney is worse, think that way out of "revenge" and with "no grounds." Well golly gee, Mr. Interlocutor, thanks for clearing it up. Fiat lux and all that - blind and now I see - and here I thought it had to do with illegal search and seizure, habeas corpus, right to a trial and to petition the government for redress of grievances - all that yesterday stuff. Reckless, lawless, swashbuckling incompetence? - nah - just sour fruit - a bit of undigested meat. . .
Who could fail to be impressed by such swaggering certainty; such bravado? And he has a JOB too! Do you sing Hi Ho, it's off to work we go when you go to your JOB?
Libby,
I'd love to read the essay, but I'm not sure that there are any clinical terms that are more descriptive than common scatological ones or that point more directly at our simian ancestry.
I hate to play his kind of game - I've been at this a very long time and have seen real masters of this. I wouldn't even be surprised if there wasn't a name for it - but claiming the war can't be considered illegitimate because it was approved by a congress that was presented with fraudulent data is as idiotic as claiming that purchases made on a fraudulently obtained credit card are legitimate. Let's see someone caught at it dismiss it all as politics, yet that's the excuse they used for Nixon and that's the only ploy they have left up their sleeves, or up whatever place they keep them.
Never apologize, never explain, never concede, always attack, always contrive an apparent contradiction and use it to dismiss what has been proved, keep harping on something they never actually said. I could program a computer to do it, but I couldn't make it as pompous.
Lester: You've obviously not been reading reports from the field. Baghdad and other areas have seen a reduction in violence. Some commanders see victory possible, even likely, but worry about the political timetable. So what if it's been five years? The administration made mistakes, but a new strategy in place now. General Petraeus is reserved in his assessment, but looks forward to continued improvements in security. Political compromise is more difficult, but we can't abandon the Iraqis to a sectarian bloodbath. C-Span? Sheesh! Is that all you're watching?
Fogg: That's some heavy chest thumping! The Federalist Papers provide the basic theory of our constitution. That's not yesterday news, since limited government is the grounding philosophy of the American system. But who needs foundations when you've got indignation?! Congress considers impeachment only for extraordinary circumstances. We've just had three impeachment episodes in history, and no president has been removed formally. Congress cannot select presidents, and political norms have limited Congress' ability to remove presidents from office. The executive enjoys considerable freedom from Congress. It's not like bitter partisanship just emerged recently. But, hey, if you're too lazy to make your case, that's not my problem.
What's the offense? The Iraq war authorization? Nope, Congress passed it with bipartisan support. Guantanamo and enemy combatants? Nope, the Supreme Court ruled against the administration, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Rumsfeld in 2004. How about warrantless wiretapping? Is that an example of the adminstration's lawbreaking, fitting the requirements for "high crimes" under Article I, Section II? Nope, sorry. The U.S. Appeals Court for the 6th Circuit just threw out that case, in a victory for Bush. Need more examples? Of course not. It's all rabid Bush-hatred driving the impeachment push. The administration's reined in by the normal constitutional safeguards. Blow as much steam as you want, and throw out ridiculous rants to your little heart's desire! You'll need more than some squishy poll numbers backing you to make a compelling case for Bush's removal from office.
Thanks for taking the time, in any case. You're a pretty good proxy for Libby!
Fogg - here's the link to the piece on that cortical dysfunction. I hope it's still live, I didn't check. And there is a word for what Donald does, it's called trolling, although he's more articulate than most, he's still playing the same game. And as always, I enjoyed your brilliantly scathing commentary.
Donald, since you put in the breaks I'll answer you. Read Fogg's reply. It says what I think better than I can. But I will add this about the NSA decision.
The 6th Cir. ruling didn't even reach the legality of the program. It was a narrow decision that ruled only on standing and the dissents made clear that if they had agreed on standing, they would have ruled the program illegal. Furthermore, it wasn't the full court so there's likely to be an en banc appeal and it could still go to SCOTUS.
Additionally, that's only one of the cases. The 9th Cir. still has pending matters open on this issue and it's a much more ballsy court. The program is far from vindicated.
Lester - thanks for the help.
Welcome back, Libby! I knew you had it in you. I'm not trolling. I come for debate, I've linked to your posts, I don't use a pseudonym, and you've been up to the exchange. Besides, trolls are handled quite easily with a quick delete. You love the repartee, though! Don't try and kid me. I know you want more -- all I had to do was hit "enter" a couple of times, and presto: You're back in action! Isn't this the best you've had over here in recent times? I do have that magnetic quality.
Now, you do prove my case with your points. If the 6th circuit was going to strike down the NSA program, the judiciary checks the executive, and civil liberties are preserved. But that wouldn't be good enough, right? Again with the racks for Bush and Cheney!
I posted on impeachment today, with a couple of nifty links to your blog. Maybe some diverse readers will come your way and clear out the echo chamber! Until we meet again!
Burkean Reflections
No sir, Mr. Douglas sir, it's a rabid president driving the hatred of Bush. That's a preposterous argument you've got there, meaning you have the arrow of causation pointed the wrong way. It's not his politics -- going back to your initial assertion -- it's the implementation of his mission which, if you don't mind the cliche', is pushing the outside of the constitutional envelope sufficiently as to cause concern by conservatives, liberals, libertarians and lawyers of all sorts -- if you don't mind facing the truth.
"Political norms" don't mean much, particularly now that we've become a government of men as much as one of laws and it's obviously quite easy for congress to impeach on any charges they deem proper, like saying "I didn't have sex with that woman" or covering up political dirty tricks or firing a Secretary of War.
There is no precise constitutional definition of impeachable offenses for good reason and Congress is essentially free to interpret "High crimes and misdemeanors" in any way it can without concern for your blind loyalties or the 18th century propaganda and editorials you toss out as chaff in the effort to be elusive.
Since the Republican machine was braying about the failure of his presidency and calling for impeachment within days of Clinton taking office, I think maybe you should have a better look at the high horse you rode in on and make sure it's not just a large jackass.
Oh, and as to things getting better in Iraq -- you're not that guy that used to be the information minister under Saddam, are you? I think maybe that magnetic quality you brag about is doing something to your brain - such as it is.
donald- first can you please stop talking about "debate"? No one is intersted in debate for debate sake. we shouldn't be having any debate, the troops should be home. your not SUPPOSED to enjoy it.
"Lester: You've obviously not been reading reports from the field. "
I'd hardly call the weekly standard "the field"
Baghdad and other areas have seen a reduction in violence. Some commanders see victory possible, even likely, but worry about the political timetable. So what if it's been five years?"
easy for you to say, you haven't had to make any sacrafise. Why don't you rent in apartment in baghdad if it' so safe donald?
"The administration made mistakes, but a new strategy in place now. General Petraeus is reserved in his assessment, but looks forward to continued improvements in security. Political compromise is more difficult, but we can't abandon the Iraqis to a sectarian bloodbath. C-Span? Sheesh! Is that all you're watching?"
nice attempt at straussian elitism there. You are a right wing blogger who thought the iraq war was a good idea. and I'M stupid and uninformed!! that's hilarious. "ohh you aren't looking at THOSE channels are you?"
donald just answer me one question. are Saddams WMD in Syria? come on answer
Is it ironic that Mr. small d Douglas seems to identify with Edmund Burke who, if I recall correctly was famous for his oratory urging the British to give up on the war in the colonies because it wasn't going well and advised Parliament to consider other options?
Yet Mr. small d "the war is going well" Douglass still expects us to believe the dogma of clear cut intelligence about nuclear weapons, pace the testimony of people like Colin Powell and others; expect us to forget about the Niger yellow cake scam, the drawings of chemical labs that turned out to be British weather balloon stations and somehow remember that it was about regime change and democracy and a whole caravan load of ever changing happy crap about the whole thing being free because they would hand over the oil fields and welcome us as liberators. Oh yes, it certainly is going well over there - that's why Mr. small d isn't signing up. It would be finished by the time he got there.
It was that way in Viet Nam, of course, as we got pushed back into fortified enclaves, the 20% who still supported the disaster chastised and mocked those who said we were losing and that it wasn't about fighting for our freedom or anyone else's. The Edmund Burkes of that day had a hard time, but they were right.
Of course it's not a debate, it's a sermon and the reference to Leo Strauss is on target in my opinion.
they've been telling us things have been getting better the entire duration of this war. every day. they have to, they're the government and its they who are screwing up
Fogg and Lester: Resorting to ad hominems reveals the thin reservior of ideas and evidence from which you argue. Strauss? My my! Is that supposed to belittle? I've posted today on progress in Iraq. I've never said the administration didn't make mistakes in the run-up to war, but most of the Western democracies, as well as Hans Blix and other armaments inspectors, thought Iraq had WMD. Besides, Colin Powell said if you break it, you buy it. We bought Iraq. The merchandise return line is not open yet, though, and we're stuck with the purchase for awhile. We're making the best of it, and despite attempts by congressional Democrats, we may see our way to success. Do stop by for a visit. I like the exchange, if not "debate," especially of the non-gobbledegook variety (i.e., "fatuous and fact-free fallacies" and "swaggering certainty").
You might want to brush up on your Burke, in addition to your syntax. It's the French Revolution the bloke opposed, not the American.
Burkean Reflections
Right, make an ass of yourself and then cry ad hominem. As I said, I could write a nice little routine in Fortran to duplicate you. Go away, you lost this thing a long time ago.
Edmund Burke
"Under the Tory administration of Lord North (1770-1782) the American war went on from bad to worse, and it was in part owing to the oratorical efforts of Burke that it was brought to an end. To this period belong two of his most famous performances, his speech on Conciliation with America (1775), and his Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol (1777)."
Yes, it's only an encyclopoedia reference, but don't bother to demand a thesis in your predictable way. I got your thesis right here.
Fogg - what astounds me is this guy claims to be a college professor. Aren't these people always complaining about the leftist bias in hiring on campuses in the first place and if this is the guy who's supposed to be teaching critical thinking to young people, well no wonder Young Republicans are so easily manipulated...
By the way, I'd agree you won this debate from the first comment.
Well I've had some professors that made me think that even a cave man could do it, as the stupid commercial says. It's not enough of a debate to have has a winner or loser - Professor small d Douglas just makes statements and never defends most of them, but when he makes comments about my syntax, he's admitting he has nothing and of course that he has no sense of humor - a sure indicator of a fanatic.
But you know, it's always the guys with the small d's that are full of so much bluster.
Fogg, I agree it wasn't much of a debate so there's little joy in victory. Nonetheless, you're the victor.
I really shouldn't particpate in this conversation becasue I know I don't have the knowledge or the experience as you guys. But I get bored and start looking at everyones blogs and who they blog and so on. So I ended up here. Just reading and trying to understand a little bit of what you guys are saying.
I don't think any of you are really giving any evidence to what you are saying.
I personally don't care for the president because I don't feel hes trustworthy. And hes a very poor speaker. Now I have to go on what everyone has to say about it so I have to decide what I want to believe and what I don't. This sounds silly, but I think most Americans just pick a side and go off what that side tells them.
So like I said I personally don't like him and don't THINK hes trustworthy, I can't say he should be impeached. Its sounds like he hasn't been convicted of breaking any laws. Now if somthing changes maybe impeachment may be looked at. But I really don't think the country needs this. We need to look strong. He will be out of office soon and maybe if he is found to have commited crimes than can't leagal action be taken then? I really don't know and am asking.
And FYI most teachers, or professors don't bring in their own political beliefs when they teach. I think the professor has been very respectful in debating with you guys and you try to personally assult him.
Vanessa, you don't have to go on what other people say to figure out this president's criminality. What you have to do is read the newspapers, pay attention and form your own opinions. THe reason he hasn't been convicted is because he refuses to cooperate with the investigations into his misconduct. That in and of itself, should tell you that he has something to hide.
As for the professor, if you consider his tone respectful, I think you must have a very low threshold for respect. He's a braggart, an ideologue and I personally don't consider being called babe and snooty all that respectful, just for starters.
As for bringing their politics into the classroom, I'm not the one complaining about the campus being overrun with liberal thinkers. It's people like the Donald. Tell it to him. I feel certain he's complained about the liberal bias on campus.
Small d Donald leaves very little to go after. He makes a series of peremptory proclamations that appear to be backed up by false assertions if anything. If you offer evidence he calls you a fool. He would not have posted here and not with such condescending tones and dismissive bluster had he not been itching for a brawl, or Debate as he calls it. If you read what he posted, that's just what he says. His idea was to chum the waters to attract people to his own blog. He got what he came for
Thanks for clearing up a few things.
I guess babe a snootyaren't nice, but I have just seen such worse language on some of these things I thought it was nice for someone who was really into it.
Anyway every seems to make some intresting point defending theircase. I guess it really does come down to the what people want to believe or not
You guys have a nice day
donald- the bush adminstration didn't make any mistakes. there is no possible way to invade an occupy a country apropos of nothing for no reason and have it be anything but a disaster. You're a right winger, didn't you see "red dawn"?
there was nothing wrong with the execution of this war. the war itself is wrong. all the mistakes we've made in iraq are the same ones we've made in haiti, gulf war one, the balkans and other places that didn't have nearly as disasterour results.
Vanessa, thanks for visiting. Do come back again.
Fogg - right as always. The guy was just trolling for hits.
Lester - well said.
Anon - thanks for the reminder.
Post a Comment
<< Home