Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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).

Rather you dismissed two clear examples of deliberate deception
as 'error', an argument I rebutted he

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...e=source&hl=en

To elaborate further:

The administration 'erred' by describing the 81 mm Medusa missile
tubes as suitable for Uranium enrichment centrifuges the same way
the tobacco company executives 'erred' when they said nicotine was
not addictive and smoking was not proven to cause lung cancer. In
both cases expert advice was obtained and then statements made that
flatly contradicted the conclusions of their own experts.

The Bush administration did manage to find some people who
said the tubes could be used for Uranium enrichment, only those
people lacked the expertise of those who gave the administration
an answer they didn't like.

By your standards of what constitutes 'error' the Bush adminstration
would be in error, not lying, if they consulted with experts at the
USNO, NOAA and the Flat Earth Society, and then announced that
the Earth is flat.


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.

Neither the USSC, which has the final authority to interpret treaties
for the US, nor the ICRC which is the international body tasked with
monitoring compliance with the GCs, found the language to be 'murky'.

No attempt has been to tranform 'the debate' from the Geneva
Conventions
to US laws. Those are separte independent arguments.

The Bush adminstration, however, prepetually tries to tranform the
debate from respect for the rule of law, to "protecting the American
People". The need for the latter has never been disputed, yet the
Bush adminisiration acts as if debate over what is necessary and
proper to accomplish that, is tatamount to treason.

--

FF