Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.
But this is exactly my point. Clinton's impeachment was a petty partisan tactic designed to overwhelm the American public with controversy- whether
credible or not- in order to create a desire for change- just to get stupid petty partisan crap out of the news. It worked beautifully. The congress,
which to the average uninformed American is essentially an annonymous collective of nobodies, stigmatized the Clinton administration with an image of
petty partisanship not even of their own making, perhaps most classically defined by the dispute over the definition of the word "is".
America needs to put this sort of petty crap in the past- live it down as quickly as possible, or it will be 50 years before any president can serve
to terms without the word "impeachment" coming up for one reason or another.
We have to realize what a heavy issue impeachment is. Impeachment is our constitutional failsafe against revolution. Bush is incredibly uinpopular
(even I'll be glad when he's gone). He may very well find his place in history somewhere among Hoover and Harding. That being said, America has to
make a crucial decision right now about the our future stability. If we choose the path of hunting desperately for any reason to impeach every
unpopular president (and at some point virtually every president is destined to fail in some aspect and become at least mildly unpopular) then America
again hold a steady course in any direction for an appreciable length of time, and will be crippled of any ability to progress in
any direction. We will become like some African or South American nations which are prone to radical political shifts and even revolutions through the
overzealous use of the peaceful revolution option provided by our impeachment process. And lest we forget, the mumurs of impeachment for Bush were
beginning even before he took the oath of office for the first time. This man was destined to be targeted for impeachment the minute he became
unpopular for any reason at all. God forgive me for saying it, but just this once I can be thankful that both houses and the oval office are in one
party's hands, because if it were not so, the democrats are clearly prepared to follow the disgusting example set by their rivals during the Lewinsky
hype and take America down a horrible path.
It is also important to look at something that Bill Clinton was not
impeached for, or even nearly impeached for, since of course my whole point
is about what not to impeach. Bill Clinton grossly overstated the deaths of Kosovar Albanians to take us to war there. His state department issued the
highest estimate of all given- first 100,000 then 500,000.
If I may quote from Wikipedia to reveal the facts:
The New York Times reported, "On April 19, the State Department said that up to 500,000 Kosovar Albanians were missing and feared dead."
However, the numbers given by Clinton and his administration have been proven false. The official NATO body count of the events in Kosovo was 2,788
(not all of them were war crimes victims)
Clinton called it genocide, but the ICTY did not charge Milosevic with genocide. NATO admits that it killed, at most, 1500 innocent Albanians by
mistake. NATO may have killed more people than Milosevic!
This is important. Bill Clinton took us to war under false pretenses, in persuit of a flawed retro-cold-war strategy, with horrible results. Never the
less, there can be very little question that he was trying, in his own inept way, to do what was best for America and the global community, and
impeachment was never seriously considered. This shows the petty political nature of both his impeachment and the murmurings of a Bush impeachment.
I reitterate: Impeachment on the grounds of failure is neither constitutional nor good for America, even where technical justification may exist.
Because of our access via the No-Fly zones and our will to enforce provisions in the terms of surrender, Saddam Hussein was NO threat to the
United States. He could not make a move without us being all over him. So the very idea of WMD being in his possession was simply preposterous to
Why then did he expell inspectors, and do so with impugnity if in fact A. He was unarmed, and B. our will was inexorably sufficient to check any
threat from him?
I know sometimes the truth ain't sexy as reality, but for the record, he and the inspectors destroyed those weapons that the west gave him,
after Desert Storm. Scott Ritter and other credible sources determine that by 1998 Iraq was clean of any viable WMD.
Scott Ritter said the following in 1998 when Saddam singled him out for expulsion. en.wikipedia.org...
I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time
measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of
their nuclear weaponization program
Bill Clinton said the following in February of 1998 regarding Iraqi WMD
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of
mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
Look into the fact that Saddam switched his oil currency to the Euro in 2000. That's the best place to start for a rational and plausible REAL
explanation for the invasion (Third phase of the Gulf War). The other place to look is straight into PNAC. There you will find your final
A double edged sword at best. Could that be why France and Germany were so hell bent on protecting him? We must remember that all competition is in
effect war of a sort. The global economy is a war zone. Our economy is tied to our security. It is not necessarily a bad thing to oppose somebody who
is bad for our economy. Afterall, none of Bush's enemies are in a great big rush to accept how wrong France and Germany were for supporting an evil
man just because he was good for their economies.
Now once again we come to the overwhelming question of this issue, because there is no doubt in anyone's mind that neo-conservatives and the PNAC are
extremely influential in this administration: Was this war undertaken with the best interest of the United States in mind? The PNAC, for all their
faults, are an organizaton supremely concerned with the security and prosperity of the USA. If George W. Bush was trying to do the right thing for
America, then impeachment is a horrible idea, even if his policy was in error or failed.
As I am defending this point so steadfastly let me remind the audience that I am merely seeking to uphold an under represented viewpoint here and
encourage inspection of the issue from all sides. I am by no means a George Bush apologist. Never the less, I believe in the points that I make. I
believe that the new partisan penchant for impeachment is detrimental to America. I believe that Saddam Hussien has been a sworn enemy of the US ever
since 1991 when we finally drew the line on what we would suffer from our former pawn. I believe that he failed to prove disarmament and that this
suggests failure to disarm. I believe that Saddam was in a mutually supportive relationship with certain European rivals of the United
States, each side doing wrong in order to help the other undermine the future of the United States. I believe that it is probable that George Bush and
his PNAC backers/masters (whichever they may be) were making an honest effort to do the right thing for America's future security, not only vis a vis
Iraq itself, but vis a vis the ressurgenence of Russian and Chinese influence and military backing in Iran, which is highly remeniscent of the cold
war. And before we blame the new Cold War on Bush, let us remember that Mikhail Gorbachev has openly criticized Bill Clinton for "attempting to
reverse the strategies that ended the cold war", and "wasting the years since the end of the cold war".
If you think Dubya has ever given you or me an ounce of thought, I got some beachfront property for ya.
While unlike Clinton, he does not even pretend to "feel our pain", there is still a very real question as to his motives, not so easily dismissed as
his enemies may like. Is he a rich scumbag with a lot of rich scumbag friends? Hell yes. Do they get to remain rich scumbags if America goes to hell
in a hand basket? Hell no. I contend that George Bush, like Richard Nixon, is a dirty no good SOB who has lied and conived in every concievable way to
ensure the mutual interests of the United States and of course many powerful and often unscrupulous individuals whose fates are directly tied to that
of the United States. I'd prefer that we were lead by a common man who thought primarily about the interests of other common men, but since we appear
to be hopelessly stuck under the rule of an aristocratic good 'ol boys club from Yale, we should at least stick a man who tries to act in the
interest of our country, until a better man for the job comes along.
Causing the death and destruction on the scales Bush is tipping, based on outright LIES, should be punishable.
If you lost someone you loved dearly b/c he/she believed in lie, how would you feel?
I'm not sure, because I've lost only friends, not family, and most of them only wounded. What I can tell you is that if I felt like making the
grevious mistake of undermining the potency and stability of American government for the next several centuries, then my feelings on that subject
would be dangerous and intellectually bankrupt.
We're still friends and we still both hate Bush, but I think we just found out why I call myself a conservative. Now let's get you some bandages and
go have a beer