 |
 |
12-13-06
Rebuttal to Mr. London
Oh contraire!
My respected friend Mr. London made excellent points in his rebuttal to my letter to Ms Pelosi regarding a demand for the impeachment of Bush. I must apologize for thinking it would be assumed that the impeachment of Bush would out of necessity also include the impeachment of Cheney. After all, it was Cheney who sent "Scooter" on the quest of finding the most damaging information he could to make Saddam appear a WMD laden nuclear threat. Whether the information was reliable or not.
I think motives are fundamentally important in any topic. The motive for lying us into supporting Iraq was this- They knew that before any war can get the congressional support it needs, it must absolutely have enthusiastic support from the people so congress can make opportunity of it come election time.
But back to Mr. Cheney, and the obvious question of what would happen minus President Bush. This problem would solve itself because the impeachment proceedings would certainly consume the next two years extinguishing any need for replacing them.
Impeachment complete, office cleaned out, Regime departs all on one January day. It would be the most efficient act performed in the oval office since before January, 2001.
As for the question of whether or not Democrats would be lowering themselves to the standards of the Republicans in impeaching a president as occurred with Clinton. As you alluded to yourself, there simply is no comparison. Declaring war on a nation in which 300,000 of its civil population die and 3,000 of our own are sacrificed for a plan Bush Co misrepresented is frankly.... no lewd cigar stunt.
As with Ms Pelosi, I will ask the same question of you Mr. London. Q-If the crime of intentionally misleading a nation into war is not reason for impeachment, what then is?
Historic instances of presidents who lied with or without arguable reason only serve to encourage the idea that corruption from the highest levels should be tolerated because justice was overlooked in the past. Shall we accept that presidents in the future once gaining power be accountable to no one, no law, no ethic? If president (A) breaks the law and somehow avoids responsibility does this set a precedent for president (B) to break the same law expecting immunity? Forgive me repeating the obvious fault in the historic references logic, but it overlooks each generations responsibility and our constitutions purpose in keeping our nation from slipping into utter corruption. In the event that we have already arrived there, impeachment now may present a pathway to its return.
I believe the court of public opinion would support impeachment quickly after the proceeding began. According to the latest (http://pollingreport.com/congress.htm#misc) CBS Poll 61% of the public is optimistic about the democrats having control of congress, while only 40% believe that Bush will be able to work with them. I see this as an indicator that the public would not be shocked by impeachment. Information that came out during the proceedings would demonstrate in stark terms the administrations orchestrated misleading of the nation into a war the public is already against.
When the public saw what has really taken place, the impeachment would through public outrage, force members of both parties to clean up their acts in Washington. The positive side of impeachment is the preservation of accountability.
Respond to this article
Return to top
|
|
|
