Now for the debate: The moral of this joke is that our priorities for criticizing our elected leaders are probably misguided at best. The question then is whose priorities? Is it the fault of a media that sensationalized a sex scandal but fails to scutinize incompetance? Is it the public itself? Or is it the politicians themselves? Or a combination of all three?
(Yes, I’m aware that some feel that Bush is doing a bang up job. This thread assumes that he isn’t for the sake of argument. Your objections are noted and irrelevant.)
John, it’s against the rules to modify another’s quote. The more appropriate argument would be to say that if we hounded this president about all the horrible things he’s done to even a tenth of a degree of how the last president was hounded, he’d have busted out some lies too, most like. And we’re pretty sure about this because he lies more than linoleum. You keep at anyone, they’ll crack, so we shouldn’t be after people who haven’t actually done anything wrong.
Certainly Clinton’s offense and impeachment were handled according to the letter of the law. However, the questions about blowjobs stemmed from an investigation that ranged far out of its original scope in the hopes that something - anything - could be found to get Clinton. If Patrick Fitzgerald were half the partisan attack dog that Ken Starr was (and if there were a democratic majority in Congress that Bush had to deal with), we might be in a similar situation again.
I am not getting involved in the argument, but I think it’s OK to modify it provided you make it completely clear you are modifiying it. Whether John did so or not, i suppose it’s up to the mods.
Posted by: Bricker
How about: he wasn’t impeached for a blowjob. He was impeached for lying under oath, which is an actual
felony.
Looked at in that light, the system works perfectly; there is no "fault" to be apportioned.
And he was judged and not convicted, but Bush has yet to be charged. I fervently
hope it happens, but time will tell.
I believe the media is simply evolving and the technical advances, allowing for a much
wider dissemination of superfluous information, will eventually be discounted by the
population. This intense focus on personal morality is resulting in politicians being
elected, and judged, for the wrong reasons. This is resulting in people being chosen for
their ability to deceive, rather than their ability to lead and govern.
I agree that the blowjob issue was kind of silly to impeach the guy with, but if W can get away with all that, it seems OK for Clinton to sell military secrets to China and not get impeached.
Yes, seven years ago Republicans in Congress are upset with some of Clinton’s decisions and there were some questions about his campaign fundraising. The same is true for Bush today. I’m not sure where you’re going with this - would you care to elaborate?
Not really. It still ends up being perjury, regardless of triviality of the event concerned. I wish it was some allowance for the relative silliness of the issue concerned, but there it is.
Is impeachment, the process you are suggesting be implemented here, a mere tool for criticism of a president’s job performance? I always thought it was a prosecutorial process.
Should GWB be impeached? I would say yes, based on his administration, apparently knowingly, having presented a false case for waging war with Iraq that has resulted in many thousands of deaths and horrifying injuries. The rest of the items mentioned in the OP’s rather turgid joke are either incorrect (for example, there has been no serious attempt I can see to create a real theocracy during this administration) or do not appear to be impeachable offenses (“ignoring global warming” is a bit too vague, I’m afraid).
If there is no current movement to impeach, I don’t see that much of a reason to blame the media in this case, as I don’t believe they are hiding anything in particular about the perceived failings of this administration. I certainly don’t have any trouble finding media reports of questionable acts or policies of the current regime. In any event, I personally am very uncomfortable with the notion that the media is there solely to tell us what to think about any given subject.
If we assume that impeachment is mandated in this case, then the primary blame for it’s not being carried out must lie with Congress and the public; Congress because it must initiate the process and has not done so, the public for being too apathetic to demand that Congress do so. I guess that includes me, since I haven’t been arsed so far to write to my representatives demanding such a move.
Note that none of this considers the probable permanent rupture in American politics that would occur if two successive administrations, one of each major party, were impeached. That may have something to do with why I hesitate to push for this to happen. Or maybe I’m just as apathetic as everyone else.
I’d suggest that there’s another significant impediment to impeachment - Bush hasn’t committed an impeachable offense. I’m pretty much with you in your assessment of the guy, and I think he’s terrible for both the country and the world, but that doesn’t change the impeachment process. To satisfy Bricker - and the Constitution - he has to be charged with a high crime or misdemeanor. What offense has he committed that would merit such a charge?
Lying in a press conference, while reprehensible, isn’t illegal. Willfully ignoring information that you don’t like, while beyond stupid, isn’t illegal. Interpreting the Constitution in a manner different than I do, while clearly wrong ;), isn’t illegal. Certainly his administration has engaged in some legally dubious activities regarding the handling of prisoners in the war on terror, but those prisoners (if they’re lucky) have recourse to the court system, and their case is against the United States rather than Bush. What specifically has George Walker Bush done that he could be impeached for?
You want Bush out of office? Me too - what have you got to charge him with?
Clinton has some serious issues which compromise national security (heck this very nation), though he was not impeached for that. Bush has according to the joke, compromised the un-rich classes, the future of the US, human rights, and the planet earth itself.
Neither Clinton or Bush were impeached for these seemingly impeachable offenses (but B.J. Clinton was impeached for lying about oral sex :dubious:
Yeah, well, then there’s that. I was gonna say that I’m not a lawyer, obviously, but Congress is full of 'em, and if they are unwilling to launch the proceedings, probably there’s nothing one could hang an indictment on.
Then I suppose there’s the little problem of getting a vote in favor, in a Republican-dominated Congress…
I have no doubt that if the Dems regained both Houses of Congress, and we had pretty much brought the troops home from Iraq, that Bush would be facing impeachment.
Conclusion: Blame it on the politicians, not the press (if you find it necessary to place blame).
BTW, this, from the OP is intellectually dishonest:
You are asking us if there is a problem with the system, but you are insisting that we agree with your political assessment. I’m wondering why you haven’t been charged with assault on your wife. Is there something wrong with the system? (Yes, I’m aware that you may not have actually assaulted your wife, but for the sake of argument, lets assume that you have.)
If a CEO does a lousy job of running your company, and costs the shareholders $10,000,000,000 of share value, you fire him. If your CEO embezzles $1,000,000 you fire him, then have him arrested and thrown in jail.
GWB’s running of the country, while (presumably, for the debate) disastrous is still just him doing his job to the “best” of his ability. It is his job to decide on the use of our armed forces, to be involved in spending our money, to make policy, and make appointments. It is not a crime to do a lousy job.
It was never Clinton’s job to lie in a sworn deposition. It’s a crime to lie under oath and potentially punishable as a crime.
I thought that it was the result of Paula Jones filing a sexual harrassment suit against him? Is that not correct? And under the rules, Paula Jones had the right to look at and bring in work history to establish a pattern. Am I not remembering this correctly?
I’d instead say that the offenses of Clinton that you mention (excluding perjury) and those of Bush are fairly similar - each one took some actions that outraged the Senators and Representatives of the opposition party. In other words, business as usual, and neither’s actions rise to the level of an impeachable offense (again, excluding Clinton’s perjury).
I thought it was an offshoot of Starr’s unrelated Whitewater investigation. I’ll see if I can find a cite later on tonight.
Congress is free to define “High crimes and misdemeanors” however it wishes. As another poster memorably wrote, it could impeach President Bush for having eighteen arms.
Until President Clinton, there was a convention that Congress would resort to impeachment in circumstances that were dire and urgent. Since that turning point the process of impeachment has been devalued, such that it is now no more than a commonplace tool of partisan politics. In contrast to President Nixon, no-one seriously considers the qualities of Clinton’s Presidency to have been summed up by the impeachment. Instead, the current view is that the sole and only test for impeachment is whether the party in opposition to the President commands majorities in both houses.
Nonetheless, in the unlikely event the Democrats command those majorities after the 2006 elections, President Bush will not be impeached. This is because the Democrats lack the killer instinct and shamelessness that characterises Republican success.
We have long had a rule against deliberately misquoting someone, and various abuses have led us to conclude that any tampering with quotes, even for alleged humor, is a bad idea.
“The Democratic Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War in Iraq is now called to order. Mr Chairman will you please ask the first questions.”
“Thank you. Mr President, have you ever used any illegal drugs? When you were an admitted alcoholic, did you ever operate a motor vehicle in a manner that endangered other people? Did your father use his influence to help you to avoid the draft? Have you ever read a pornographic magazine? Have you ever made a joke about Hispanic Americans? And, oh yes, have you ever cheated on your wife? Answer all of these questions and limit your responses to yes or no.”
Let’s face facts. Faced with a hostile Congress, a President has two choices if he’s questioned under oath - lie or end his political career.
