Well I’m thinking of a scenario where the Pres is directly responsible for his subordinates testimony(in the spirit of the OP).
Some might be a little less trusting on Rumsfeld’s testimony. For instance:
This is probably the most compelling point he makes as far as pre-emptive strikes go. Anything to really back up this statement?
But I shouldn’t hijack. The OP is if Bush purposely lied should he be impeached? My answer to that is ethically yes, logistically no (which I sense we would agree on).
The problem with claiming that to be a lie is that it’s rather vague. What does “determined” mean? Our government might well say it’s determined to eradicate poverty, to ensure a good education for every child, and to ensure every American has a job. But notwithstanding that determination, it’s unlikely that we’ll ever reach 100% on those goals.
The question Congress needed to hear answered, then, is not “Are they determined…” but “What evidence indicates they havem or will develop, the means to effectively attack us?”
Personally I think the President in this case should be held responsible for the testimony of his subordinates. If a subordinate flaps his/her jaws inappropriately then the administration/President can immediately try to correct what they were saying or at least qualify their words. In this case the administration from the top down was all singing the same tune, repeatedly, about Saddam and his possession of WMDs. Even if the President had few actual words leave his mouth on this particular subject I find it hard not to hold him accountable for the overall stance of his administration. If he can’t be then there is something seriously wrong with our government. A President/CEO of a corporation can be held accountable for the behavior of those under them even if they themselves had no direct hand in the misbehavior (as long as it can be show that they either encouraged/accepted the behavior or were so absent from the running of their company as to be negligent in their duties). So too should it be for the President of the US…at least I think so.
There’s a difference between “holding him accountable” and removing him from office.
The President is a constitutional officer; he embodies the executive branch and is chosen by the electorate. Removal from office should be reserved for a criminal offense, not merely poor selection of cabinet officials.
The very best we can hope for out of all this, at least domestic politics-wise, is that the American public wise up. That we realize that simply because a man wraps himself in Old Gory and bloviates solemnly about “our troops” does not make him a patriot.
As most of you know, I am the very soul of generosity and forbearance. I am willing to entertain the notion that Fearless Misleader believed every word he said and solemnly credited himself with divinely inspired insight and world-class statesmanship. I must be willing to accept this, because I am on record as regarding him as a mediocrity and a simpleton. In order to indict him as a criminal, I must credit him with more malign intelligence than I have reason to accept. The little twit thinks he’s a Leader of Men, God help us, but that foolishness does not make him an arch-conspirator, it makes him a malleable and manipulable stooge of vastly more capable, and more cynical, acolytes of realpolitik.
Yes, WhackAMole, it’s easy to say that the buck should stop with the President. I’m not disagreeing. But perhaps Iran-Contra showed that that’s rather hard to put into practice.
I both agree and disagree. I guess it depends on just how poor those officials in the cabinet are and whether the President allows them to continue in their duties once their lack of ability and/or judgement becomes apparent. That doesn’t take into account whether the President abided there poor decisions not to mention outright lying if that’s what it turns out to be.
I admit that to have this rise to the level of actually ousting the President via the impeachment process the issue would have to be pretty egregious and as such would likely be near impossible to achieve. Hopefully if this all turns out to be the case it will be remembered and noted come November, 2004. Unfortunately I have little faith in the electorate as a whole to first remember all of this and second to cogitate on it to at least some degree before forming a decision at the ballot box. I don’t like to think of myself as a cynic but there it is anyway.
There’s an old saying: “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.” This expression is no more applicable than to the world of politics and success therein. If you have the financial backing, have a closet full of good suits, can smile for the cameras and work diligently for the special interests that put you in power, then you can become a successful politician—even President of the US. It certainly does not require any intellectual prowess and the suggestion that it does is somewhat humorous.
Sorry, John Mace, I just couldn’t leave that one alone.
I can agree with every point that you make, save for one very important principle. If you excuse a man for actions that he commits just because he is foolish, you make it okay to be stupid. Often stupidity is a choice made rather than a gift missing. For example, a man that has done something terribly wrong will often convince himself that the outcome was something different to what it really was, hence not confronting reality, hence he can’t deal with facts, hence he becomes stupid. If you’ve ever seen a child flatly deny doing something for which they’ve been caught red-handed, you’ll know what I mean. Sometimes they know they’re lying; often they have simply managed to convince themselves of what happened despite all of the evidence reality presents. The point is this: If a man kills and has an IQ of 40, is he any less guilty or any less dangerous than a man whose IQ is 160?
I don’t know how many criminals have feigned insanity to avoid prison because a flawed justice system seems to say that insanity reduces guilt. The point that is overlooked is that insanity is inevitably present in severe criminality. And the insanity is separate and exclusive of intelligence.
Stupid or not, ignorant or not, Bush should be held accountable. If he lied to the public in fomenting war to forward special interests, he should be nailed for it, even if his subordinates lied to him. He is their senior and responsible for picking and overseeing them. If he has allowed himself to be played by his juniors, then he is no less responsible and every bit more accountable. If you excuse someone because they’re dull, you’ll just wind up with more dull people claiming a right to be excused for criminal acts.
If only Bush would be held truly accountable and brought up on charges. However, I won’t be personally holding my breathe.
"If only Bush would be held truly accountable and brought up on charges. "
Lander:
You might ask yourself why no Democrat in Congress is spearheading this effort. Perhaps they are all blind. Perhaps they are secretly in on the conspiracy. Or perhaps you are wrong. Which scenario passes the Occam’s Razor test?
BTW, no prob with your ctitique of my comment to Elucidator. You are certainly free to think that a bumbling idiot can stumble into becoming the PoTUS, just because he has “good connections”. I’ll just say that I didn’t care much for WJClinton, but I’d never begrudge him the accomplishment of winning the oval office.
I’d say the best fit for Occam’s Razor here is that it is simply too soon to tell and the evidence doesn’t exist yet. The pile is starting to stink a bit but it is still a LONG way to nailing the President for lying on this issue. Add that I can already think of a few dodges the President might play and I have no doubt his spin doctors could think of a few more.
I’d add one qualification for becoming President is being slippery enough to avoid overly damaging accusations. Considering it generally requires a lengthy political career before getting the White House I would say anyone who makes it there has proven themselves extremely adept at sidestepping inconvenient accusations (unless you think they are saints and have no skeletons on their closets). I believe this is true of whoever makes it there these days regardless of party although I will say I am shocked at how well Bush manages it.
While intelligence does not seem to be a prime requirement for the White House I feel very safe in saying the GWB is the least intellectual President the US has had in a long time. That doesn’t necessarily make him stupid but certainly not the equal of his peers. No way does he stand up to Al Gore (not President I know but opposed GWB), Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower…crap…the list goes on. I’m not up on all my Presidents but it seems you’ll have to go back a ways to find one dumber than GWB.
When that is the case you pray for a good cabinet and while I think GWB has a very intelligent cadre in his cabinet I worry about the control they might exert on the President which brings me full circle to just how responsible the President aught to be for his cabinet. I think very responsible personally. You shouldn’t hang the President up by his thumbs for one or two bad apples or missteps but if there is a pattern that continues then he is definitely responsible.
I guess I should note I am not too sure about how well Presidents Ford and Johnson compare to GWB in my list above but I feel safe with the rest and still fairly safe with Ford and Johnson [sub]although I’m ready to be corrected.[/sub]
Or perhaps they’re just politicians. In case you hadn’t noticed politicians don’t do anything unless they’re very confident that they can attract significant support. It seems that these days anyone denouncing Bush is in serious trouble—case in point: The Dixie Chicks. You really think any politician is going to watch that fiasco and then say, “Yep, I’m going to get up and announce that the President should be indicted on criminal charges.” Yeah, right. Politicians bow to their campaign contributors and popular opinion, not their sense of integrity over what is essentially right or wrong. I’m sure even you realize this.
Or perhaps I’m wrong? Maybe I am. It happens sometimes. Problem is the quote of mine that you posted is not even subject to right and wrong—it is an “if only.” Or perhaps you’re just desperate to make me wrong because I oppose your stance on this and maybe even make a few points that are worth thinking about.
Well I certainly do begrudge Clinton for “winning” the oval office. Sorry sir, I don’t think I fit the stereotype that you expect. Maybe your evaluations are based upon the fact of whether someone says he’s a Democrat or a Republican, but mine aren’t. My opinion is that a system that puts in power as many corrupt liars as the American political system does, needs to be re-thought. And before anyone gets all sanctimonious on me, no I do no think that there is a better political system in use on Earth. In the middle ages the best transportation they had was horse-back; that doesn’t mean that something better could not be developed.
And I don’t think I said that Bush “stumbled” into becoming pres. I think I said that he had the financial backing, had a closet full of good suits, can smile for the cameras and work diligently for the special interests that put him in power. I guess you would prefer that I said something as stupid as: he “stumbled” into power, because that would be easier to argue with, huh.
No need…You will note (in the quote of me you provided) that I said both sides. I am quite aware that coalition forces suffered nowhere near a thousand casualties (closer to two hundred IIRC). Still, I think people getting killed count in this regardless of who those people are. I am happy the coalition casualties were incredibly low considering what was achieved and I’d rather see an American come home alive than an Iraqi but that does not mean I wish to see anyone at all get killed. If GWB lied to go to war I feel he is not only accountable for lost American lives but Iraqi lives as well. At least I hope he would be so I included all casualties for the purposes of this thread…not just coalition.
There we have another example of misunderstanding of the nature of the impeachment/removal process as being a fundamentally legal one, simply because it has largely the same trappings as a trial at law. It is not. The acceptable basis for “charges” is not established by any specific laws, and, if it were, it would be up to the same body that also serves as grand jury, prosecutor, jury, and (largely) even judge. No appeal process exists. “Poor selection of cabinet officials”, btw, is, based on Andrew Johnson’s precedent, entirely adequate as a basis.
It is a political process, or you can call it statecraft if you like, pursued or not based on political judgment for whatever reasons seem appropriate to the House - or, as recent example shows, the majority party acting alone without real consultation.
So the OP is missing the point - the House will impeach Bush if they want to, and not if they don’t; and the Senate will “convict” him if they want to, and not if they don’t; and the stated reasons can be decorative.