Should Bush Be Impeached And Convicted?

[Chris Alger]

There won't be any real investigation and they don't have to plant a smoking gun. There might be hearings, but every administration has an airtight alib for these occasions: "we relied on the best intelligence we had, and acted accordingly; any mistakes were made in good faith." And just as in Iran-contra, the "intelligence" will never see the light of day. In the meantime, the Democrats will be pilloried by right-wing pundits for partisan harping about the integrity of public officials regarding wartime judgments (something that's flatly unassaiable), hypocrisy after most voted to authorize war, interference with a core executive function, etc.

The worst case scenario for Bush will some congressional criticism about morally netural errors of judgment which the media will explain as understandable overeaction given the nature of the enemy we faced, public outcry over 9/11, the Islamicist threat, and rhetoric similar to that used to justify all the other foreign interventions we've launched since WWII. Any investigation will therefore shore up the perception that the Democrats are relatively soft on defense and will cost them more than they'll gain. Some Democratic "centrists" like Lieberman will side with the GOP.

Here's the crux of the problem: the average American that reads the news (and is not among the large group who are psychologically incapable of questioning any American use of military force) finds it difficult to imagine, much less articulate, a logical non-defensive reason why the war was fought without falling into the discredited conspiracy theorist or Quaker paradigms. The notion that the US acts like other powerful countries throughout the world and throughout history, that it has elite foreign interests unrelated to most citizens, and even less related to its domestic political norms and ideals, and that it will use mass violence to protect them, simply is not a position that can resonate in the popular press. It can barely be mentioned except by sources that are discredited as falling outside the spectrum of responsible debate (Robert Scheer, for example, presently the target subject of a right-wing campaign to get newspapers to drop his column). There are too many pressures to flavor any discussion of foreign policy with what Aurthur Schlesinger once called "high-falutin corn" (in advice to JFK about how to explain our Cuba policy) and even worse rhetoric pandering to the racists and fascists among us. In fact I suspect I'm understating it.

As for "finding" WMD, there are lots of scenarios short of a planted "smoking gun" this that will give Bush the minimal level of vindication he needs to at least retain his popularity. (BTW, I read that polls show that Americans don't much care whether WMD are found in Iraq). They can find "trace amounts" of agents and their precursors in "suspect locations." There are dual use chemicals like "gorwth media" that Iraq certainly has. If Iraq destroyed agents by burying them, they can be dug up with the claim that we can't prove "when" they were buried (perhaps on the "eve of war!"), and that they probably haven't been usable for years will be buried down in paragraph 20. These discoveries will be hailed by the propaganda machine as "likely" or "potential" WMD.

And it is entirely possible that Iraq retained some modest stockpiles of somewhere. Although this won't refute the anitwar argument that they never posed a serious threat to anyone, given that Saddam never used them without at least an amber light from the US, and would have sealed his fate if he did, the media will treat it as proof positive that the antiwar crowd had it wrong on the basic facts.

If little is found, I can outline the apologist defense right now: liberal appeasers and Saddam defenders, always squeamish about using the military for its intended purpose, demand absolute proof that Iraq was about the launch WMD against the US. Thank God that Bush & co. have the moral fortitude to act before it was too late. And in any event we liberated Iraq from the Great Satan, restored our credibility abroad, etc. etc.

[Parmenides]

Shicklgruber's polls were about the same after the Reichstag and annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland. You are in good company.

[Parmenides]

One would expect a reply like this from a sycophant bootlicking Brown Shirt.

[Parmenides]

Bush has lied to Congress over the need to go to war. He has lied to the American public repeatedly about WMD. He has doled out huge contracts to his cronies' companies. He's making the middle class tax burden heavier and heavier, while giving away Social Security to benefit the rich.
He's a fascist. You are a sycophantic bootlicker, just like M.

[Cyrus]

Ronald Reagan apologists try to compensate for the man's colossal ignorance and equally grand lack of leadership qualities with the same old tired cliches about his supposed ability to gather round him competent people and let 'em do their job. The old cliche about extensive delegating to competent people. (I even recall an interview conducted by a business magazine with Reagan about his "managerial style" !)

Which is all fine and good until you take a look at Reagan's record when he chose to veer off the teleprompter. The guffaws he drew! And until you look closer to the kind of "competent" people he chose to surround himself with, men like James Watt or Oliver North or Kissinger-wannabe Al Haig (snicker, mirth). As to Reagan's grand strategy, I have only two words for you: Star Wars. (But I forgot, this was part of the bust-the-Russkies grand strategy too.)

For anyone still clinging to some weird notion that RR "won the Cold War" or any statement of equal value, I can only, if humbly, recommend a perusal of the totally hilarious account offered by Oliver Sachs, the well-known ("Awakenings") doctor of neurology, about aphasic patients watching The Gipper on TV. Read it and weep --- from laughter.

[adios]

So the WMD hysteria in Iraq is equivalent to the Reichstag fire in your view?

[adios]

Interesting, thanks for the link.

[adios]

If you had your druthers what would you put on TV? I mean reality TV might be low class to some but I think it's the public's choice more or less. Cable and Satellite TV provide many alternative channels.

[ACPlayer]

The statement was in jest and not a jab at the reality watchers -- if it is a jab it is at news media and the pundit sub-culture who are always looking for an interesting show.

I like some reality tv shows (specially if you include discovery channel, travel channels, as reality tv).

I have no trouble turning off the TV for the shows i dont like and finding the shows i like; and i think that the companies should cater to their audience.

[oscark]

"Odd how historians seem to have 20/20 hindsight yet no foresight whatsoever!"

Not so odd actually, Jimbo. By definition:

1. a historian is a writer, student, or scholar of history.

2. a historian is someone who can predict the future [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

Oscar