American Values Alliance | Practical voice for progressive valuesAmerican Values Alliance | Practical voice for progressive valuesBut Lalita makes an excellent point. We have not made it clear that future presidents can’t get away with abusing the public trust. If we are willing to let George W. just ride off into the sunset next January because doing otherwise would be a distraction from the “real issues,” then we’ve arguably lost sight of what the real issues are.
Put another way, if it’s okay for an American president to abuse his power and thereby abuse us, then we shouldn’t pursue impeaching Bush. But if it’s not okay, we should demand his impeachment—and regardless of how much time he has left.
Lalita, I really hope you passed on the bleach yesterday as it is very bad for you. If you really felt soiled by mentioning the McC name, then you should have stuck with soap. ;)
I'd like to throw out a couple of more points here.
Impeachment isn't a toy. But, it is getting to the point where it is mentioned in the same fashion that some use the term "Nazi". In ignorance. One thing I really am concerned about is that if impeachment proceedings would be initiated is that we would almost guarantee every subsequent two term President to suffer the same fate. Considering the current opportunity, is that really what you want to do?
President Bush's activities frankly are just an extension of what has been going on with the Presidentcy since FDR. The problem is that partisanship has blurred the responsibilites of the other branches of government. Members of Congress don't vote for their constituents' interests, they vote for their party's interests. And, we (the voters) let them because we have deluded ourselves into believing that it's OK to do so. The SCOTUS has also become a den of partisanship. Are potential Justices vetted on their Solon-like abilities to provide fair and unbiased opinions before being included in the august Nine? No. They are run through a gauntlet of litmus tests for partisan political doctrine.
Our system of federal government was set up to provide a two-tiered check against abuse of power. Congress and the SCOTUS are failing to hold up their end of the bargain. Yet, no one seems to be interested in hoisting their petards over it. Why is anyone even surprised the a President (any President) doesn't grab for the golden fleece? It is inevitable.
Let's talk about legacy. You think you don't want future Presidents to consider treating the Constitution like a Word document they can edit at will? Then it is incumbent upon you to take the checks & balances that are failing to fulfill their function to task. Responsible Representatives and Senators should have been doing what is right, not what their party leadership said is right, and demanded(!), daily, that the Constitution be upheld. Further, the SCOTUS should have been there to back them up.
Scapegoating and witch hunts are just diversionary. Don't fall for it. In the long run, you'll be sorry.
________
Lalita L. Amos, CRC
http://www.totalteamsolutions.com/
http://totalteam.blogspot.com/
You made me go back and re-read that whole post to make sure I hadn't missed something there.
Maybe, I just took the wrong thing from it. For me, the critique was that we (as a collective term) all too often take the easy way out when assembling our own Weltanschauung. Our minds reduce complex gradiations in philosophy, politics, morals, religion, economics and whatever else to overly-simplisitic, black and white constructs devoid of any substantive objectivity. I took it to be that the author's criticism was that he considered us to be superficial thinkers, on the whole. But, enough of that. I put that link there to provide a view that everything can't be reduced something simple enough for a four-year old's reasoning skills.
I actually agree with you that military action should be something not just wielded "at-will". I think what we disagree upon is exactly what might be the demarcation line for a change from political/diplomatic to military action. Nothing wrong with that since neither you or I have our finger on the "deploy" button down at the Pentagon. If one or the other of us did, then our differences would have to be addressed at some point. That never happened with this Bush administration, and since you didn't agree you are rightly frustrated with being left out of the process. That will be a black mark for President Bush in the old Presidential history excerpts some day.
Hopefully, by now, you know my opinion about lying politicians (especially Presidential ones). At some point, they ALL do it. We really don't want one that doesn't, believe me. The problem for a President is knowing who to lie to, and when to do it (when can be a moving target with changing values). Now, you despise President Bush for lying about WMDs in Iraq. No you don't. You're really mad at yourself for falling for what is (now) obviously a bunch of claptrap. You're just transferring your disgust elsewhere because you don't have to look at President Bush in the mirror every morning. Don't feel bad. I don't like it when I'm wrong either. I fell for the WMD argument as well. Not many didn't.
But, and I might be wrong here (mathematically speaking), despising anybody for being a liar has got to be one of the biggest narcissistic diversions I know of. Frankly, you're a liar. How do I know? I have yet to meet someone who isn't. The odds of you not being a liar is stupefyingly insignificant. Everybody lies. The difference is in the magnitude. No, those slacks don't make your butt look fat. No, your hair is just thinning a bit. That grandbaby of yours is sure cute. It's okay, I don't mind some extra work. Those are lies. Bald-faced whoppers, all too often. Sure, they don't equate to "Iraq has WMDs", but Diogenes wasn't the only man who failed to find a honest person.
Now, if you want to qualify your statement and say you despise President Bush for telling Goebbels-sized whoppers for poorly defined strategic policy purposes, well OK, that kind of position is defendable. Otherwise, please spare me your indignation if you just think that President Bush is the only liar around town.
Democrat - Republican? Does simple party affiliation intrinsically have any real value when you are determining respect, or lack thereof, of a person? I hope not. I really hope not.
While thinking about some of this it has come to me that something is trending in an incorrect direction as far as the Presidency goes. Worse, it doesn't seem to matter which side of the fence occupies the office either. Since the advent of mass media, especially visual media, the Presidency has increasingly been "awarded" to the candidate who can play the game of winning the office over a candidate who might actually be able to effectively carry out the duties of the office. Maybe, I'm just still holding onto the fact that my horse in the current race lost out early on in the "beauty contest" phase. Hmm. Something to think more about as my "argument" is only a sketch, for now. That's only fifteen Presidential biographies to find and read up on....plus the contemporary accounts of the campaigns, and the losing candiadates, and the various historical PsoV (PointS Of View)....Whew. I need a Fellowship. Well, that ain't happenin'. Better quit. I'm starting to wander.
If having a strongly-held (and long-held) conviction that war should always and only be a last-resort option makes one a narcissist, and if despising those who lied us into a war makes one a narcissist, then I guess this is one cowgirl who’ll just have to ride that high horse.
But just so you know: at this point, I doubt by now I'd have more respect for Bush than I do even if he was a Democrat.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/05/the_wrong_lessons_of_iraq.html
2 days 13 hours ago
3 days 8 hours ago
3 days 14 hours ago
4 days 8 hours ago
1 week 2 days ago
1 week 3 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 6 days ago
2 weeks 1 day ago
2 weeks 1 day ago