Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:
If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.
SNIP
So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting the
Articles to the House.
All of which points out one of my central contentions: The Bush critics
largely just hate him so much that any argument, any method, or any
approach is OK so long as it diminishes the administration in some way
(not unlike the Right that hated Clinton with equal ferocity, though
arguably with a more clear basis).
The Bush-haters argue on the one hand that he is a "lying liar who lied
about everything" but when challenged with the evidence that would
support his humiliation and even impeachment, they retreat to "it's ...
because there is insufficient support ... to impeach him", utterly
sidestepping the point that even a failed impeachment would be a source
of considerable humiliation and loss of power for W (assuming there
was some shred of credible evidence to support it).
Similarly, they argue that what he wants to do is "illegal". But when
confronted with the murky language of the Geneva Conventions, they try
and transform the debate into why what we're doing to foreign combatants
does not meet the (far stricter) rules of our *domestic* laws. The next
line of retreat is "well, nice people don't do those kinds of things" or
"we're sacrificing *our* Liberty to get the illusion of safety" even
though the current conflict is (arguably) all about *preserving* our
Liberty.
So long as the central debate is about who will win the political
conflict and thus not about how we will preserve the republic, we are
doomed. There are a few reasoned voices from the Left I admire -
Christopher Hitchens leaps to mind, so does Joe Lieberman. But since
they fail the "we must win at any cost" litmus test, they are dismissed
and marginalized by their own camp. And this is tragic. Hitches,
particularly, makes some of the most thoughtful and reasoned arguments
about why, for instance, "torture" ought not to be a part of our
arsenal. He does this without appealing to US Code, the Geneva
Conventions, or any of the other fictitious fabric found in most of the
rest of the Left. He makes his argument based on *what is good for the
nation*. It's too bad more people don't think that way. I am, and
remain, highly critical of the Right, but at least they argue for their
positions based on what they see as good for the free West, not on the
basis of how lousy their opponents ideas are. They could be right or
wrong, but at least their motivation seems decent ... I think I'll go
listen to Howard Dean scream one more time now ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/