wrote:
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.

OK, for argument's sake, let's say everything happened just the
way you describe. Do you seriously consider this an impeachable
level of lying? That is, does it meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors"
level of prevarication? Inquiring minds wanna know.


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'.

Sez you. But, back on Planet Earth, there is real debate without
trivial answers as to just how these rules are to be applied
when the subject is not specifically in one of the named protected
classes. You are holding your breath and turning blue because
you want everyone to buy that your *interpretation* has no legitimate
counter. It is political sleight-of-hand, because you *know*
that a legitimate debate exists. What's fascinating about this
is that I am personally mostly opposed to physical coercion
beyond some basic level of psychological pressure. But the
idea that we are forbidden from doing so with people caught
red handed in civilian clothing while fighting our troops
is laughable. You might as well suggest that the answer to
the current global conflict is to get W and UBL on a room for
a couple of loud verses of Kumbaya - that has about as much merit.


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

But are conveniently conflated when it suits your rhetorical purposes.
You wandered on and on about just *who* was entitled to the
privileges of our system and just *what* actually constituted
our social/legal contract (and idea embedded in the very fabric
of our founding philosophers). You did so in the middle of this
very debate: What shall we do with non-uniformed combatants?
Context is everything, and the context of your commentary on
the matter of our domestic law very reasonably can be inferred to
mean that you think it has at least some applicability. It doesn't
and never will.


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.

So, again, if this is so indisputably obvious, and the issues are so cut
and dried (and here I thought Lefties specialized in "nuanced" thinking)
why not embarrass the President by getting the Demo whiner contingent to
get the impeachment ball rolling? After all, it's *obvious* you're
right, and even if you can't win impeachment, the weight of your
considerable "proof" for these claims will certainly undermine the power
and prestige of this President.

Or ... maybe just maybe, it's just all partisan hot air - the exact same
hot air that the Right spewed as it dwelt on Clinton's pathetic love
life (anyone married to Hilary should be exempt from the Commandment on
adultery - anything else would just be cruel) and ignored his
considerable endangerments of the republic on other front. Yes indeedie,
craven political ambition, and the corresponding ability to jam your
ideology down the country's throat is so much more important than
defending our borders and freedoms...




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/