MSNBC Poll: Impeach Bush!

The BBQ Pit
81

You opined that misgivings were not expressed by any of the Senators who voted for the AUMF. Sure, Feingold’s statement is much more emblematic of opposition (and IMO admirably so), since he followed his misgivings by actually voting NO.

But Kerry’s statement (just as legally pointless on its own as Feingold’s) lays out a basic line of argument for the legitimate expectations the Authorization brought to bear on the POTUS by its wording. The statement itself has no import as a legal document, but it does illustrate the kind of misgivings which you claimed to DtC weren’t offered. Furthermore, the cautions and expectations Kerry expressed should not be dismissed as irrelevant to future considerations by the court, since they are not self-dependent but are based on a reading of the text of the legislation in question.

82

That wasn’t what I meant, but maybe I wasn’t clear. The vote happened in October (cynically timed by the Pubbies to be just before the election), but by Jan/Feb it was clear we were going to war. In that timeframe, did anyone like Kerry stand up and say “hey, this isn’t what I voted for”? Not that I’m aware of. Now, it might not be completely fair to expect them to do that since it would be tough politically. But then, they should’ve thought about that back in Oct. People like Feingold did.

83

Well, John, I agree that’s a different question. I’ve done a half hour of my best Googling and blog archive searching and can’t find any of the signers standing up and trying to pull a Tiananmen Square type of confrontation when the tanks started actually rolling.

But I really can’t see how the lack of any cries of “Duplicity!” by the enablers when the decision was made -but before contrary evidence would have been available- is the appropriate test for the impeachability of Bush on a “lies and deception” basis.

(Note that I’m still not endorsing an impeachment effort by the incoming Congress.)

84

Just to be clear, I only see this a “potential problem” for the Democrats, and more in the political realm than anything else. And rememebr that even a year after the war (long after we knew no WMDs were there) Kerry still wouldn’t say his vote was a mistake. Frankly, I think he did think it was a mistake, but just was too chicken to say so. Trying to sort out what a person’s “real” position is and what his “poltical” position is can be tricky, though. We only really know what he did and what he said. If we take him at his word, he only thought the war was a bad idea when it had clearly become a disaster (after the fact).

85

Not a bad point about the potential fallout Dems might likely face with impeachment on that basis. They might have to sacrifice some of their own. (Not necessarily a bad thing for the party or the country.)

The real political problem for the Democrats with impeachment, I think, is the restrictive effect it would have on their ability to push their legislative and investigative agenda. The Dems must show some effectiveness in the next two years at producing pragmatic alternatives, and exposing the results of the past six years of Republican leadership.

That’s a tall order, and Pelosi’s “first 100 hours” plan will not bear fruit if the House is gridlocked by impeachment.

86

“Will doing the responsible thing backfire on the Democrats?”

Again.

Sigh …

87

What would actually happen if a party was dealt a “death blow?” You do realize it’s impossible for our two party system to ever end under our current election laws and constitution, and that if any party does die it just is going to be replaced by another coalition of roughly similar values.

Nixon didn’t kill the GOP, in fact it didn’t even win them many elections, the country got one dose of Carter and didn’t dare vote Democrat again for 12 years.

88

In what world is an MSNBC.com poll, “the public?”

It’s a poll without any scientific controls, no chance at a random selection, and in which the same person could answer the poll multiple times with the same answer or even contradictory ones.

89

Elvis, would it not be responsible at the moment to spend time uncovering the truth in other areas of corruption (war profiteering, energy policy, Big Pharma’s role in the prescription drug plan, etc.) as well as the lead up to Iraq? Because that’s what will be lost if the Dems decide to punish Bush and/or Cheney for one act instead of exposing the whole criminal enterprise.*
*[sub]And maybe lose the chance to enact important legislation prior to November 2008 as well.[/sub]

90

Well obviously I realize that, which is why I say that it won’t be the death blow to the Republican party. Thanks for the civics lesson.

But parties have died before to be reborn under new banners. At this point, I don’t know what the Republican values are other than fiscal irresponsibility, losing two wars simultaneously, racism, homophobia, and corruption, but the Jesus freaks seem to like them and they’ve sold enough of the little brains on the idea that you can have more government for less taxes that they should be able to weasel themselves back into the majority in no time flat.

91

Sorry, the racism dog just won’t walk, at least the Republicans don’t have a form Grand Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan as Senator (wave to senior Senate Dem Robert Byrd.)

Your statement is so loaded and without substance it’s beyond belief. People like you do nothing other than contribute to the problem. When you generally believe that, “the other side = nothing but bad” you’ve already labeled yourself a blithering idiot.

So yeah, I got your message, Republicans = evil, Democrats = good. That’s so easy, I can’t believe I’ve never got it before. I keep forgetting that the SDMB reflects the mainstream views of Americans.

Hell, even the Democrats would do their best to try and deny you lot of miscreants as supporters if you were actually on their radar.

92

It’s not so much about Republicans Vs. Democrats but about one specific faction within the Republican party. The Republican party isn’t going anywhere but the Neocons are dead in the water.

93

The neocons never had any power in terms of electoral success. Bush wasn’t a neocon when he was elected in 2000 and I really don’t think he’s a neocon now. Aside from a few political appointees I can’t really think of many prominent neoconservatives who have held elected office.

In fact, Bush was about as traditionally conservative as you could get in his pre-9/11 views when it came to foreign involvement, and that was, as little as possible.

Furthermore, I think the total numbers of “neoconservatives” has always been very small. The neoconservative ideology is actually very out of whack not only with what was the old “core” Republican views on foreign relations but very out of whack with what most Americans in general think is the correct way to go about foreign relations.

Neocon is a word that gets bandied about a lot but I am willing to bet a large percentage of Americans don’t actually know what it means. If you asked the average Republican what he thought about proactively invading other countries around the world to shape them to our values most would probably not be too favorable towards the idea. The old Republican ideal was one of as little involvement as possible, although obviously under the Cold War that was still quite a lot. Personally I’m not a neocon or an isolationist, though I’d have probably been an isolationist prior to WWII.

I think what happened with 9/11 was the governing party was the GOP, and the only faction within the GOP with a strong, coherent philosophical view on foreign relations were the neoconservatives, so by default their views began to shape how we responded to 9/11.

That’s one area where the GOP was hurt by not having a President for eight years, we hadn’t really formulated foreign policy in a long time, and the only group within the GOP that really had strong ideas about foreign policy were neocons.

I think an established foreign policy is something the GOP is sorely lacking. Throughout the Cold War both the GOP and the Dems basically wanted to do whatever it took to get the upper hand over the Soviets, while we disagreed with the specifics sometimes, over all both sides were very much agreed on the overall goal, at least the mainstream wings of both parties. Once the Cold War was over I think George H.W. Bush was going in the right direction with his “New World Order” and etc. He was asserting that collective security was still just as serious as it was during the Cold War, and that just because there’s a power vacuum in the place of the USSR doesn’t mean every tinpot dictator can start invading countries willy nilly.

But then Bush lost reelection and Clinton for his eight years worked out fairly well when it came to foreign relations.

But in all honesty 9/11 was a watershed event in foreign relations and we really need to find a way to deal with the issues that have come up because of 9/11 and because of the very real and growing divide between the Islamic world and the Western world. I think neoconservatism is not the answer, but I think we’ll continue to be in bad shape until some sort of answer is developed. I still give the neocons big props on having a clear, consistent ideology. It’s something that the rest of the GOP doesn’t have, nor do the Dems at the moment.

94

I don’t disagree, from the viewpoint of responsible citizenship. But it leads to the same conclusion as lying us into a war, doesn’t it?

The political risk is that piling on too many charges diverts attention from the most serious, the ones with the broadest public support, and makes the effort appear to be simple revenge for the Get Clinton farce. It would be portrayed that way by the partisan right, no matter the reality, sure - but keeping focus on something for which there is no plausible excuse (though they’ve tried, bless their hearts, they’ve tried) defuses that claim.

Lying us into a war is not only off-the-scale more serious but is *qualitatively * different from the more ordinary corruption problems you list, all of which can be dismissed as merely Washington At Work. That stuff doesn’t kill people.

95

To be fair, that poll is a little weasel-worded. Personally, I think Bush should be impeached, that his flagrant disregard for the Constitution (search and seizure, habeas corpus, manufacturing evidence against Iraq, etc.) but I wouldn’t support the new Democratic Congress making moves in that direction. I think what might start as a legitimate legal process would turn into partisan “You impeached one of ours, we’ll impeach one of yours,” and the whole thing would waste so much time that the Democrats wouldn’t achieve anything beyond making the American public hate them for being the same partisan time-wasters that Congresspeople are stereotyped to be. Besides, this election doesn’t show that Americans like Democrats, it shows that they hate Republicans. The Democrats need to walk a fine line and convince America to reelect them in '08, or the Republicans will take back Capitol Hill and keep the White House in the bargain.

96

I agree with Martin Hyde. The respondants to the poll are self-selected and in are highly unlikely to be a representative sample of the US population. Or the very least you are unable to determine whether or not the sample is representative.

As a WAG let’s say a margin of error on a poll of this type is ±?%

97

Who said anything about piling on charges to begin with? Let’s shine a light on what’s been done in secrecy.

I think the more that’s exposed about shady goings on, the angrier people are going to get, and the more public support there’ll be for ultimate accountability. Maybe impeachment could then be in the cards without sacrificing effective Democratic government, which I would argue is what the country needs more than any particular person or goup’s comeuppance.

98

I don’t think there’s anybody much left to *make * angry. The 31% minority have to be mostly dead-enders at this point.

As for the word “charges”, that’s what any actual responsible investigation would look like, since that would almost have to be the outcome based on what we already know.

I understand you disagree that lying us into a war of aggression is just one item on the list, more or less on a par with systemic corruption or consensual blowjobs, but I don’t understand *why * you can think so.

99

We don’t know each other really, but we’ve both been posting long enough that you ought not to “understand” what you’ve just stated. (And what’s with bringing Lewinsky’s office skills into this? What the fuck has that got to do with anything?)

100

Oh, get off it. He wasn’t impeached for a blowjob and you know it. He was impeached because he commited perjury while in office.

.

Right.

Since he didn’t “lie us into a war of aggression”, I’d place it as non-existant.