April 24, 2006 by lonbud
Trouble Comin’ Every Day
One wouldn’t know it by reading any of America’s major dailies or by watching the people soon-to-be-replaced by Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News, but impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush have begun.
Utilizing a little-known provision of the House Rules Manual of the 109th Congress, Representative Karen A. Yarbrough of Illinois’ 7th District introduced a resolution on April 20 in the Illinois General Assembly calling for the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach Mr. Bush for willfully violating his Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Students of American government might pause and wonder how it is that a State representative can initiate such a prospect, but — and isn’t this republic of ours a wondrous thing — there it is in the precedents and procedures crafted long ago by Thomas Jeferson himself:
Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House.
In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444).
The upshot of it all is that any state legislature may, by joint resolution, present the House of Representatives with Articles of Impeachment, which must — under House Rules — take precedence over all other business on the floor at the time of presentation.
You can read the full text of the Illinois joint resolution here.
Following closely on the heels of the good representatives from the Land of Lincoln, California Assemblyman Paul Koretz of Los Angeles today offered an amendment to a joint resolution on disposal of depleted uranium he introduced in January, calling for the California General Assembly to demand the impeachment of both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
“At both the state and national levels,” Koretz said, “we will be paying for the Bush Administration’s illegal actions and terrible lack of judgment and competence for decades—not only in the billions of dollars wasted on the war and welfare for the rich, but in the worldwide loss of respect for America and Americans. Bush and Cheney must be impeached and removed from office before they undertake even deadlier misdeeds, such as the use of nuclear weapons. There are no bounds to their willingness to ignore the Constitution and world opinion—we can’t afford to wait for the next disaster and hope that we can survive it.”
Of course, it is possible, even likely, that neither the Illinois legislature nor California’s will pass either of these resolutions, but other states and localities throughout the land are officially wakening to the disaster wrought by BushCo and it seems increasingly clear that the Connecticut Cowboy will spend the balance of his term in office fighting off calls for his impeachment or resignation.
Additional information concerning the breadth of dissatisfaction with Mr. Bush’s job performance can be found here.
One may rightly wonder why it has taken so long for this groundswell to build, for w’s approval ratings to sink so low, and even for members of his own party to begin distancing themselves from him and his politics of fear and ineptitude. I’ve written before in this space of the media’s complicity in the public’s lack of interest, and I maintain still that the Fourth Estate bears much of the blame for the waste of time, and money, and lives by which the ruling junta have diminished the nation’s strength and stature.
In the end, it remains the province of the people to retain this democracy, for which we must again and forever give gratitude to men such as Thomas Jefferson, who provided the structure and the guidance for doing so. Thanks, too, however, are due to people like Rep. Yarborough and Assemblyman Koretz for having the courage and the intelligence to use them.
Michael Herdegen - April 25, 2006 @ 12:39 am
Oh, oh please, please, PLEASE pass this, Illinois or Cali…
“The Connecticut Cowboy” was George H.W. Bush, as we’ve discussed before.
George W. Bush grew up in Midland, TX.
Is there some reason that you keep mixing up Presidents #41 & #43 ?
Is it simply because they have the same first and last names ?
California Assemblyman Paul Koretz of Los Angeles says of Bush and Cheney:
“There are no bounds to their willingness to ignore world opinion…”
Who in their right minds thinks that the POTUS should be bound by “world opinion” ???
You certainly won’t find any Bush or Clinton advocating such.
That’s just moronic.
Tam O’Tellico - April 25, 2006 @ 5:41 am
Of course Bush isn’t bound by world opinion – hell, he doesn’t even care about public opinion in this country. At least he says he never even looks at polls, let alone pay attention to them.
Some would argue that Bush is intellectually incapable of paying attention. His modus operandi is the same as all theocratic fanatics: My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.
Well, if Bush cares in the least about his legacy – and most egomaniacs do – maybe he should start paying attention. Hell, maybe he should actually listen to the people he is supposed to represent, someone besides his groveling toadies.
Polls continue to show such a sharp decline in w’s approval ratings that given the typical poll error rate of plus or minus three per cent it is theoretically possible that at some point between now and 2008, Bush could be rated less than zero.
Some of us have known that for a long time.
lonbud - April 25, 2006 @ 6:32 am
George W. Bush grew up — if indeed it can be said he did so at all — in eastern boarding schools, and is as thoroughly a product of yankee blue-blood convention and training as is anyone with the last name of Kennedy or Kerry. What he failed to obtain thereby — or what his trainers failed to inculcate in him — was any sense of affiliation with, as his so-called saviour, Jesus Christ put it, the least among you.
w is about as Texan as a bowl of clam chowder, and a good deal less savory.
There is also a significant difference between being bound by world opinion and a willingness to ignore it. You’re not a very careful reader, sometimes, Michael, and your propensity to call those who might disagree with you moronic is disconcerting at best.
I do expect the Chief Executive to consult world opinion on a wide variety of topics, especially those that involve the unprovoked commitment of the U.S. military, the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars of national treasure, and the wasting of the lives of tens of thousands of America’s youth.
But then I’m under the impression that the United States is a part of a global community of nations, that our citizenry is a uniquely privileged subset of the entire race of humanity, and that we, and our government ought keep those notions in perspective as we make our way in the world.
Michael Herdegen - April 25, 2006 @ 7:35 am
There is also a significant difference between being bound by world opinion and a willingness to ignore it.
Please explain.
If Bush shouldn’t feel bound by world opinion, then who cares if he ignores it ?
You’re not a very careful reader, sometimes, lonbud.
I called an idea moronic, not a person.
Unless you believe that I was attempting to dehumanize Koretz by referring to him as “that”.
I do expect the Chief Executive to consult world opinion on a wide variety of topics…
For a lawyer, you have a really poor grasp of the U.S. Constitution.
…especially those that involve […] the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars of national treasure, and the wasting of the lives of tens of thousands of America’s youth.
So, your idea is that we should let China decide where and when the U.S. should spend money, or American lives ?
Doesn’t that also mean that, since “world opinion” is that Iran shouldn’t have nukes, America is allowed to attack Iran whenever we feel like it ?
lonbud - April 25, 2006 @ 8:59 am
How easily you amble off into the weeds, Michael.
China = the world?
And while “world opinion” is that Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, it by no means follows logically that world opinion holds Iran should not be allowed to produce nuclear energy, nor that America is allowed to attack anyone, for any reason.
The implication of your use of the term moronic in your previous post was that anyone who believes the President of the United States ought to be mindful of world opinion in setting U.S. policy is a moron. If you’d like to dispel the wisdom of such an idea, dismissing it out-of-hand as moronic isn’t your best tack. It’s a sloppy, incendiary rhetorical meme that doesn’t advance an intelligent conversation; some might even call it moronic.
I see, too, you dropped your defnse of w’s cowboy cred like a prickly pear. Now, that was smart of you.
Tam O’Tellico - April 25, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
Lon, You forgot to add that if the rest of the world thinks it’s such a great idea for Iran not to have nukes maybe the rest of the world should play policeman this time around – especially since we still seem to have our hands quite full in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It simply boggles my mind that anyone would seriously entertain the idea of attacking Iran when we are up to our arse in alligators already. And if our response is to nuke ’em back to the stone-age, someone needs to explain to Bush that the fallout from a nuclear attack could well take out Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon as well – not to mention that it might be a good idea to get our boys out of Afghanistan and Iraq first.
Hey, maybe that’s Bush’s secret Nixonian plan to get us out of this godawful mess – pull our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and then bomb the shit out of Iran with nukes. Hmmm – I wonder if he’s discussed that plan with the Israelis?
JJJ - April 25, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
well, well, well, checks and balances in place…I did read in the El Pais nespaper a few days ago…the presidential impeachment proceedings had begun…but no details…this is exciting…how long will this process take? I believe all the house committees are stacked with Reps- and the th november elections are just around the corner? Wouldn´t this project have been better after the mid term elections? Can this work?
lonbud - April 25, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
Just goes to show that foreign journalists have a better head for what’s really news in America than our homegrown ones do.
Did El Pais happen to update its readers on the nasty feud between Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie? Do you know the color of Baby Cruise’s eyes?
The impeachment process, as I mentioned, is likely to die in vitro, unless the Democrats regain some legislative turf in the Fall, but even if they don’t, there are potentially 50 state legislatures that can force even a Republican controlled House to take up the question.
Given the continuing difficulties the U.S. military is having in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it is likely the entire world will have the pleasure of watching w twist in the wind for the entire rest of his term.
At this point I would be remiss if I did not refer you once again to the sublime graphic I posted back in October.
Michael Herdegen - April 26, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
I dropped the cowboy issue because you’re emotionally attached to believing that W “isn’t a true Texan”.
While I will mention every time you bring it up that it’s a mistaken notion, there’s no point in going further than that.
There is no “community of nations”.
There’s only an ecosystem of nations.
Communities are organized around some unifying point or points.
It might be racial, or religious, or just geographic, but communities function because most of the people in the community want it to succeed, and there’s a common central core.
But there is no unifying “other” outside of the Earth, at least not yet, so the only thing that all nations and societies have in common is that we’re all human. That’s not enough. There’s no worldwide agreement on what we should all work toward.
We don’t agree on forms of government, economic organization, religion, or ideal futures, and the disagreements are deep and strong, strong enough to die and kill over.
Given that situation, it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that those whose self-interest is best-served if America is weakened should have any say whatsoever in what America does.
Likewise, China, Russia, and France, to name a few, don’t pay any attention to what the U.S. would most like for them to do, unless they would profit from it.
However, I can’t tell you how much amusement it gives me to see people argue that the rest of the world knows better about anything than the most successful nation in history.*
Particularly since, out of the G8, the entire planet’s eight most powerful and rich nations, only America, Canada, and the UK aren’t in a downward spiral. France, Germany, and Italy are headed for a world of hurt, and Japan and Russia are stepping off of a cliff.
Why would anyone listen to proven failures for lessons in how to succeed ?
Now, if they wanted to give us advice on making cheese, or shoes, or vodka, or beer, or perhaps chocolate, then we should listen closely.
By 2050, America’s power will have doubled, relative to the rest of the world. Her economy will comprise at least one-third of the entire world economy, very possibly half, and her military is likely to hold two-thirds of the entire world’s military power.
By then, whatever a majority of Americans agree on will be the de facto “world opinion”.
India will be the next Germany or Japan, and China will be the next Soviet Union, except not as expansionistic, nor as hostile to the rest of the world.
* Exceptions include abolition, Prohibition, and the “War on Drugs”. Any others ?
Michael Herdegen - April 26, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
Here’s a better link: By 2050, America’s power will have doubled, relative to the rest of the world.
Tam O’Tellico - April 26, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
M: * Exceptions include abolition, Prohibition, and the “War on Drugs”. Any others?
Xenophobic as ever, I see. You should go to work with John Ironhead Bolton.
At least you got it right about abolition. Spain was centuries ahead of us eliminating slavery. When Columbus – an Italian – showed up at the Spanish court with Indian slaves from the New World, Queen Isabella rebuked him soundly. BTW, by royal decree, King Carlos II of Spain freed all the slaves in the New World in 1693. Bet you didn’t see that in any of your xenophobic high school history books did you?
Nor did the tell you much about the ethnic cleansing of the Indian. Fact: Hitler used our treatment of Indians as an example when he decided to rid the Third Reich of Jews. It was not Hitler, but William Tecumseh Sherman who coined the phrase “The Final Solution”.
If we are the moral arbiter of the world, as you claim, we might well follow the example of a nation like Libya and rid ourselves of nuclear weapons. We might sign the Kyoto accord – yeah, I know global warming doesn’t exist.
We might have voter turn-out at least equal to Iraq, and Lord knows we could stand some improvement on minority voting rights.
Then there’s infant mortality and most other aspects of our healthcare system. That these things happen in the richest nation on earth is the shame, not the light, of the world. Please explain to me again how tax cuts for the wealthy are solving these problems.
If the “community of nations” doesn’t figure out how to do something about the proliferation of nuclear weapons – ditto for bio-chem WMD – or even try to do something about global warming, the rest of our non-mutual interests aren’t going to matter much.
The fallacy of your argument is that you mistake nationalism for some sort of given, when in human terms, it hasn’t been around all that long. In fact, in reality natiionalism is only tribalism on a larger scale. It may be wishful thinking to imagine that homo sapiens will at some point in our evolution learn to think globally, but if not, we will become just one more extinct species.
bubbles - April 26, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
The Worst President in History? One of America’s leading historians assesses George W. Bush – Sean Wilentz
George W. Bush’s presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history. more.
Sean wrote the concluding two paragraphs just for you, Michael:
lonbud - April 26, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
Interesting article, Michael.
Though I missed the part where it says By 2050 America’s power will have doubled, relative to the rest of the world. Every outside date I read said 2025, and there was precious little said at all about America.
Besides, I’m not sure anyone needs a Hoover Institution fellow to explain that life is likely to be as hard — and even harder — twenty years from now in China, Russia, and India than it is today.
there is no unifying “other” outside of the Earth
Brilliant observation, lad! Why not coalesce around the notion that what’s good for the Earth ought to be a significant (if not the paramount) policy driver? Things would change –as they need to — fast.
You’re not interested, however, in finding the common central core of humanity or in doing the work to produce worldwide agreement on what we should all work toward.
You are willing to stake your fortunate birth in this lifetime on the idea that riches = success, and that might makes right. That’s bad enough, given the sweep of geologic time, but what’s worst is that you are willing to stake your future — and that of the rest of the planet — on the idea that America’s global preeminence at this moment has been well-tended by the former cheerleader with the keys to the kingdom.
Michael Herdegen - April 27, 2006 @ 2:40 am
Why not coalesce around the notion that what’s good for the Earth ought to be a significant (if not the paramount) policy driver?
You’re not interested, however, in finding the common central core of humanity or in doing the work to produce worldwide agreement on what we should all work toward.
This is one of the core disagreements that we have.
You lay all of the blame for the world’s ills, and all of the responsibility for correcting them, at America’s feet.
Newsflash – it doesn’t matter what’s best for the Earth, most nations and societies won’t take that into account.
It doesn’t matter how much effort you put into talking about what everyone ought to be doing, you won’t reach a worldwide concensus on any goals.
It’s been tried.
By many generations.
lonbud - April 27, 2006 @ 9:04 am
Which explains why, living in a corrupt society, you feel no need to demand something other than corrupt behavior from your leaders.
Party on, Garth.
Tam O’Tellico - April 27, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
M: You lay all of the blame for the world’s ills, and all of the responsibility for correcting them, at America’s feet.
Puuuuuuuuulllllease! No one here is blaming America for the world’s ills – we’ve got all we can handle dealing with our own. Too bad your boy doesn’t understand or care about that sad fact.
Furthermore, he’s the one going half-way around the world in a feeble and fruitless attempt to correct the lack of democracy in Iraq. Of course, that was only AFTER his flimsy WMD fabrication didn’t pan out. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Bush may not bring democracy to Iraq, but if he gets his way, he’ll bring dictatorship to America.
Truth is, it’s you and your ilk who want to correct the rest of the world, and now you’re encouraging Bush to play Cowboys and Iranians. One fiasco at a time, please!
Sometimes I can’t decide whether you’re putting us on or you’ve OD’ed on Rash Limberger and Fox News.
lonbud - April 27, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
How does one reconcile reticence to the sour aftertaste of blame with the yen for delicious, unchecked power?
It really is the political conundrum of the moment, perhaps the ages.
Tam O’Tellico - April 28, 2006 @ 7:42 am
No, lon, the conundrum of the moment and the ages is that anyone who desires power is by definition unfit to rule. From King David to Emporer Napoleon (the present occupant of the WH is not worthy to be included in such a discussion), the lesson of history is that even men of good will, great dreams and great genius seem to lose the ability to think objectively when every other man is a subject.
All the more reason that those in positions of great power should welcome dissent. But alas, again the lesson history is that they inevitably wield that great power to supress and silence those with the courage to disagree.
bubbles - April 28, 2006 @ 9:42 am
To say nothing of a functioning system of checks and balances.
Hey MH,
spin baby spin http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060428/ts_nm/security_usa_dc_1
Michael Herdegen - April 28, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
I’m not sure what your point is, bubbles.
More than 11,000 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide last year, killing 14,600 people…
So, in other words, the typical “terror attack” involves one person murdering one other person. Sounds like “terrorist attack” is synonymous with “hate crime”.
What lesson do you draw from those figures ?
Michael Herdegen - April 28, 2006 @ 11:15 pm
As you wrote, over at Salon.com, on January 19, 2006:
The U.S. are much smarter than most nations, which is, in part, why we have so many nifty, shiny toys, both as a nation and individually.
Americans work harder than almost any other peoples, which is most of the rest of the reason why we have so much.
As for kindness, Americans outgave every other nation on Earth when the Indian Ocean tsunami hit, and our military delivered immediate relief efforts that NO OTHER NATION ON EARTH was capable of doing. Note well that there are several nations that could potentially be capable of doing what we can, but all save one choose butter over guns, and that one is the formerly-world-dominating-Empire that preceded America.
None of this comes from any arcane secret, or hard-to-emulate formula: It’s rather simple, and America is glad to share the recipe.
Any nation on Earth could be as successful as America, and we’ve helped at least Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan do just that. But, for various reasons, most nations simply fail to desire to succeed.
So, as far as I can see, America as a nation is exactly what you want individuals to be.
What prevents you from acknowledging that ?
lonbud - April 28, 2006 @ 11:25 pm
You (unintentionally, no doubt) raise an interesting point, Michael. What is the difference between a terrorist attack and a hate crime?
And since when does a mathematical average describe a typical event?
Let’s say 13,000 of the deaths occured in only 1000 of the attacks. Would you then say the typical attack killed 13 people, or the typical attack wasn’t fatal to anyone at all?
This speaks to the complete absurdity of using statistics to describe anyone’s discreet reality. The reality is that hatred breeds terrorism, and there’s a lot more of it around today than there was before BushCo committed the wealth, power, resources, and youth of the United States to stamping it out.
By any measure our president has failed in his chosen mission, and if indeed terrorism or hate crimes are anything to rid the world of, he is clearly not the man for the job.
Michael Herdegen - April 29, 2006 @ 2:25 am
Well, no, not “unintentionally”. Why do you think that ?
I would characterize a “terror attack” as one which had the intent of influencing the behavior of some group, by “making an example” of those attacked. The point of a “hate crime” is simply to harm or kill someone, in response to some innate quality that they possess.
The former can include the latter, such as when the KKK would attack blacks – those were both “hate crimes” and “terror attacks”.
But many terror attacks are made against people who aren’t specifically hated by the attackers, they’re just in the wrong place at the wrong time – many of the IRA and Red Brigade attacks were like that.
Which is why I’d question the notion that 11,000 “terror attacks” took place in 2005. My guess is that most of ’em were “hate crimes”, or maybe just street crimes, but someone benefits from classifying them as “terror-related”.
Under your hypothetical, I’d say that the typical attack harmed no one.
This speaks to the complete absurdity of using statistics to describe anyone’s discreet reality.
All it says is that you haven’t bothered to look up the info which would answer your question.
bubbles - April 29, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
Clearly, the simplest, most logical, most straightforward conclusion to draw from the report is we are not safer as a result of the “war on terror”. However that doesn’t stop Michael. His arguments are so predictable. Line of attack number one is the source regardless of the extent or detail of the evidence provided. In this case since it’s the people who are conducting the “war on terror”, that one is off the table. The report is unambiguous and the conclusion is unmistakable. We are no safer. Rather we are in more danger than ever from terrorist attack. However that is anathema to his worldview, so dealing with the reality of the situation is to be avoided. Thus he invents from whole cloth some weak rhetorical or statistical crap, anything to avoid the obvious. Its not argument or dialog it’s what it always is: cheap, poorly constructed contradiction and finger pointing.
Michael Herdegen - April 30, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
bubbles:
Clearly, you didn’t read the whole article.
Further, since my take on the article is “weak statistical crap”, then obviously you should be able to easily refute it – which you haven’t done.
bubbles - April 30, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
I read the whole article. Here’s a few more. You simply don’t have a leg to stand on. -period.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14390584.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12430800/
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/endlesswar.htm
lonbud - April 30, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
well, bubbles, michael’s obvious ace-in-the-hole is that we haven’t been attacked here in the Homeland since 9/11. in his eyes, ipso facto, we are safer.
go figure.
bubbles - April 30, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
I included some material from last spring because it shows us where this trend was a year ago, and accurately predicts where we’d be today absent a change in policy which of course hasn’t occurred. In short the progress we’ve heard so much about has taken us from flaying to failing. The only political question that remains is who will get left holding the bag. Which explains why given this Administration’s propensity to crank up its slime apparatus the military brass and Colin Powell are all saying “told’ya so’. Financially and in terms of needless loss of life and limb the ‘bag holding’ appears to have been resolved. Funny thing is whether you’re a conspiracy bug or Bush operative the idea that another 9/11 like event bolstering the Bush Administration is nearly laughable. There might have been a time when we as a nation could have been one more terrorist event away from a police state. Now one more event will have the White House surrounded by pitchforks.
Michael Herdegen - April 30, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
I wish I knew how to quit you… 😉
I hadn’t intended to post more about the impeachment nonsense, but the thought of the House of Representatives being forced to consider the matter came unbidden to my mind earlier, and it caused me such amusement that I had to return to the subject.
How, exactly, would such a move help Congressional Dems this Nov. ?
In my opinion, and in the opinion of most Congressional Dems, (as evidenced by the near-total lack of support for Senator Russ Feingold’s censure idea), forcing impeachment hearings would be a DISASTER come Nov.
Instead of winning eight seats in the House, and possibly one in the Senate, Dems might instead lose seats.
However, I’d like to hear an explanation of how it would actually be beneficial. Maybe I’m wrong.
lonbud:
Yes, not being attacked clearly indicates that we’re MORE at risk, just as the lack of crime in the suburbs proves that they’re actually MORE DANGEROUS than the inner city.
Right ?
Besides, in the article that bubbles provided a link to, the 11,000 attacks were actually a substantial drop from the previous number of attacks, so if one trusts the agencies doing the counting, (and bubbles indicated above that he does, and then hilariously claims that I do as well, despite my overt attack on the credibility of the figures), then it must be concluded that we ARE safer.
But bubbles didn’t bother to read down that far, he just read the first paragraph, and rushed, panting with eagerness, to post a link to an article refuting his own argument. Takes all kinds, I guess.
Hey, at least we had fun with it, and that’s a big part of what counts on one’s deathbed.
bubbles - April 30, 2006 @ 11:09 pm
Michael I’ll say it again. I read the articles and I have no idea what you’re talking about. Well thats not right I know you’re up to your ‘I’m going to take this one sentance out of context’ tricks again.
Michael Herdegen - May 1, 2006 @ 1:59 am
bubbles:
Since you admit that you cannot understand the article, why do you follow that admission with an insult ?
All you have to do is ask why I’ve written anything that I have; insults from a position of ignorance enhance no one’s stature.
But, since you were big enough to admit your befuddlement, even if in a churlish manner, here you go:
In other words, they have been undercounting in previous years, and have changed their methodology.
Therefore, this report is only useful in establishing a baseline going forward, it cannot be compared to those that came before.
However, if you find some agency or NGO that has had a consistent method of reporting over the past five years, I’d be interested to read any report which suggests that attacks on Americans outside of war zones, or on American interests and installations worldwide, have increased.
Show me the attacks on American embassies, on American troops outside of war zones, on American warships, on American civilians – which are all things that we saw in the 80s and 90s – and I’ll concede my error.
But here’s something that you may wish to consider:
bubbles - May 1, 2006 @ 8:10 am
I’m sorry here’s the part I missed. Maybe you can help me become a more critical reader. I see where is says the accounting methods have changed; what I can’t find (by any measurement) is where it says terrorist incidents or the number of terrorists has decreased?
Regarding Osama – Now that you can’t win the statistics argument you’re reaching into the tone of these video and audio tapes? Come on… join us in the real world here. That’s like saying, “the score is 45 to 7 but they look really tired now”.
Michael, it’s not insult I’m trying to achieve it’s self-recognition.
lonbud - May 1, 2006 @ 8:30 am
I’m glad you came back to the original topic of this post, Michael. Why is the necessity of impeachment proceedings contingent upon some imagined benefit to the Democratic party? Your making it so reveals the extent of your remove from the question of what ought to be good and right and just about our society.
If the Chief Executive is incompetent (and guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors), it ought to be the responsibility of those nominated to oversee the office to take up the question without regard to the consequenses to their personal job security.
The Democratic party has been shooting itself in the foot for the better part of a quarter century now, and the collective hesitance of its members to do the right thing with regard to Mr. Bush’s job performance is yet another instance of the party’s declining relevance.
I daresay had Democratic members of Congress backed Senator Feingold’s censure measure en masse it would have galvanized the populace for an electoral tsunami that would sweep the Republicans from power in both houses of Congress come November.
Typically, however, the party chose a course of action seemingly safe and restrained, and one which guarantees a continuation of the essential rift in the nation’s political personality.
Tam O’Tellico - May 2, 2006 @ 9:04 am
Lon, I’m afraid this is one occasion when I must agree with Michael – altho I am partially in agreement with you, too.
Michael is correct that the Democrats – save for Feingold, Conyers and others on the fringe – have made the correct political judgment in deciding to avoid the “I” word. The thinking seems to be that it is better to let this administration continue its wretched downward spiral on its pathetic path toward self-annihilation. As the guilty pleas mount and the repeated mewling of Karl Rove before the grand jury continues, no doubt the Democrat plan is working.
But while it may be working politically, it may well prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. Why? Self-annihilation by this administration will have substantial collateral damage for all of us – including the Democrats. And in the end, they will suffer politically as well for their lack of courage. In that case, Lon, you are correct.
As for the twisted statistics from the State Dept you all are bandying about, it is useless to even discuss them since by their own admission they can’t be compared to anything.
Are we safer? By Michael’s reckoning, yes. But as always, Michael takes the shortest, most self-satisfying view. Only he, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a few other remaining hard-liners espouse the notion that the Iraq War has made us safer from a future terrorist attack – and I doubt there is a single one of them who truly believes the policy pap they offer for public consumption.
Tam O’Tellico - May 2, 2006 @ 11:01 am
This is just in from Big Brother:
“The Washington Post reports that the FBI sought personal information on thousands of Americans last year from banks, Internet service providers and other companies without having to seek approval from a court, according to new data released by the Justice Department.
In a report to the top leaders of both parties in the House, the department disclosed that the FBI had issued more than 9,200 “national security letters,” or NSLs, seeking detailed information about more than 3,500 U.S. citizens or legal residents in 2005.
The report, released late Friday, represents the first official count of NSL use. It was required under legislation that extended the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law.
The count does not include other such letters that are issued by the FBI to obtain more limited subscriber information from companies, such as a person’s name, address or other identifying data, according to the report. Sources have said that would include thousands of additional letters and may be the largest category of NSLs issued. The Washington Post reported in November that the FBI now issues more than 30,000 NSLs each year, including subscriber requests.”
I know I feel much safer now.
Meredtih Charpantier - May 2, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
time is up on the racket when politics trump government as absolutely as ablsoulte power corrupts… time has been up on this racket for quite some time now. I would love to see someone let its major players know, they can fold it up and move along now. whatever their chances for reelection become.
Michael Herdegen - May 3, 2006 @ 10:31 am
bubbles:
I apologize for being overly and unnecessarily combative.
Tam O’ is correct – the State Dept. figures are a single data point, that prove nothing, one way or the other. They simply set a new benchmark.
lonbud:
Why is the necessity of impeachment proceedings contingent upon some imagined benefit to the Democratic party? Your making it so reveals the extent of your remove from the question of what ought to be good and right and just about our society.
That may be true, but your statement also reveals the extent of your remove from actual election-winning or power-wielding.
There are indeed times when what is right should be done, regardless of cost or consequence, but not every political or ethical problem calls for a suicide mission.
Further, the question of what is good and right and just about our society is far from a simple one.
I happen to think that invading Iraq, and removing the sadistic, insane, and inhumanly oppressive Saddam regime was the right thing to do, regardless of cost to America, and also regardless of whether it turns out to be in America’s best short-term interest or not.
You strongly disagree with that position, although you recognize that Saddam was all of the negative things that I mention.
Who is right ?
Opinion polls show that each of us can cound on about a third of the populace to always support our positions, and the swing third is more apathetic than anything. When good things happen in Iraq, they’re with me; when bad things happen, they’re with you.
If the Chief Executive is incompetent (and guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors), it ought to be the responsibility of those nominated to oversee the office to take up the question without regard to the consequenses to their personal job security.
Sure, but it’s not clear that the Chief Executive is incompetent, or guilty of anything.
It’s just more opinion, either way. Therefore, it’s a political question, not a moral or ethical one.
As opposed to Clinton, where he clearly was guilty – but it still turned out to be a political question.
I daresay had Democratic members of Congress backed Senator Feingold’s censure measure en masse it would have galvanized the populace for an electoral tsunami that would sweep the Republicans from power in both houses of Congress come November.
I daresay that no such thing would have occurred, and judging by the number of Democratic Congresspersons tripping over each other in the rush away from Feingold, the political pros agree with me.
Suppose that the Senate had censured the Prez.
Who would respond ?
The Far Left is already fired up. Perhaps some Center Left folks would be perked-up by the display of in-your-face aggression.
The Far Right, fairly content with the status quo, isn’t currently more motivated than normal to campaign, fund, and vote for the GOP. If the Senate attacks the Prez so boldly, however, then they get fired up.
Let us suppose that the additional energy of the Center Left and the Far Right cancel each other out, as happened in ’04, when record numbers of young people voted – but so did record numbers of the Religious Right.
Then we’re left with moderates and non-partisans to decide the issue.
Would such people find censuring the President to be productive, and not politically motivated ?
IMO, very doubtful.
Tam O’Tellico:
Only [Michael], Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a few other remaining hard-liners espouse the notion that the Iraq War has made us safer from a future terrorist attack…
In the short-term, I don’t argue that the Iraqi pacification makes America safer, although I believe that will be a long-term effect.
I believe that the other elements of the WoT have been successful, and that we’re CLEARLY much safer than we were in ’01, when we weren’t focused on any such threat.
Again, as I said to bubbles, in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, terrorists attacked American citizens in America and elsewhere, American embassies, troops in non-war-zones, and military assets in foreign lands.
That isn’t happening much now.
Therefore, we’re obviously safer. It’s just that your anxiety level is higher, because now we aren’t oblivious to the danger.
Meredtih Charpantier:
I would love to see someone let its major players know, they can fold it up and move along now. whatever their chances for reelection become.
Ah, now you’re asking politicians to become statespersons. If they were willing to do that, then Federal term limits would have become law in the 90s, when seriously proposed.
Further, it’s somewhat humorous that someone in France would comment on American politicians overstaying their welcome – turnover at the top of U.S. politics is vastly greater than in France, non ?
lonbud - May 3, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
it’s not clear that the Chief Executive is incompetent, or guilty of anything. It’s just more opinion, either way. Therefore, it’s a political question, not a moral or ethical one.
As opposed to Clinton, where he clearly was guilty – but it still turned out to be a political question.
I’d say that about sums up the crux of your disconnect, Michael.
If there’s anything about w that is clear, it’s his executive incompetence. He has a long and inglorious history of it, has revealed it in countless policy and personnel blunders during his presidency, and we’ll all be suffering the consequences of it for many moons yet.
Clinton was guilty of lying about his sex life, whereas w is guilty of misleading the nation into a war of choice, guilty of spying on American citizens in violation of the law, and guilty of looting the treasury in favor of enriching his friends and business associates.
Saddam Hussein’s heinousness does not excuse w’s mendacity.
Michael Herdegen - May 3, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
Well, one of us is certainly disconnected.
Time shall tell.
If there’s anything about W that is clear, it’s that he’s one of the most successful people in America.