Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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.

Of course.

Deceiving the Congress in order to indfluence their vote on what
has thus far been the most important piece of legislation of the
21st Century should shurely qualify.


....

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.

False. You conflate the two when you claim someone else is
trying to 'transform' the debate.

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.

Here we disagree.

Out government was founded on the concept that all Men are Created
Equal. NOT all parties to out legal/social contact are created equal.

Due Process and Habeas Corpus, and the protection against
cruel and unusual punishment, have always been applied to
aliens on our soil..



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.

Do you think that the Nation benefitted from the Clinton Impeachment?
Do you think that the Republican party benefitted from the same?

Is it often the case taht those who respect only power often make
the msitake of assuming that the same is true for those who oppose
them.

--

FF