You do not think the public mood was altered to want payback for 9/11? America wanted to kick some ass after that and Bush offered up his personal vendetta. Americans were seeing red and not being choosy. Made it a lot easier for Bush & Co. to sell their war.
IOW, they wanted to be lied to. All too true sadly.
I wouldn’t say that. I think Americans would prefer that the real bad guys get it and not just anybody. It was more Americans were not being very watchful to see those who deserved it got the pointy end of the stick. We were all too ready to accept at face value anyone the government pointed at as the bad guy.
This thread has been a fascinating example of someone (a well spoken, intelligent and articulate someone, I’ll give you that Whack-a-Mole, you’ve done a fantastic job of clearly stating your thoughts without lapsing into partisan demagoguery, I admire you for it) stamping their feet and repeating over and over again “But I want it to be so! I want it! I want it!” Your arguments have been refuted time and time again, by logic, by reality, by law. It’s time to admit that no matter how much you dislike George Bush, no matter how much you hate the Iraq war, your arguments have been thoroughly discredited. Prosecuting Bush just isn’t going to happen. (MHO only, He’s done nothing top be prosecuted for, as people have been telling you again and again).
One further thing, because I see this paraded about all the time. Bill Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury. Period. The fact that he lied with regards to something that was absolutely no business of anyones except him and his wife is immaterial. I think Ken Starr went way beyond the bounds of his mandate and dragged personal details into his investigation, and the fact that Clinton’s impeachment was based upon partisan politics at it’s worst is not relevant. The whole thing was disgraceful. Still, he lied under oath. Bush, no matter how misguided or wrong you think the Iraq war is, didn’t do that, so can we please dispense with these false equivalences?
Thanks for the kind words.
I do not agree though that it is just foot stomping and there is no proof of anything of merit. I think there is more than sufficient evidence to merit a formal investigation and then see where that takes us. Obviously I have already tried and convicted Bush in my mind but I am confident a proper investigation and trial would lead any reasonable person to the same conclusion.
To wit I offer the ACLU’s ten point document which lays out a case for prompting an investigation and includes cites and law (real laws). And that alone is just on one major issue…there are more. I provide this to hopefully show you this is not merely a fringe of loony Bush haters but that there is an actual and legitimate belief Bush & Co. violated some rather serious laws.
If nothing else I think that is sufficient alone (and it is not alone) to justify a formal investigation.
My point with this is two-fold.
When we argue over whether Bush “lied” you get a lot of hemming an hawing over what a “lie” really is. I think there is proof he lied and certainly deceived and misled Congress and the public.
Now, is that a crime? Seems maybe not so my complaint is it damn well should be. The President has a Constitutional obligation to do a State of the Union address. I think it would go without saying that what he says there should be the truth and not a bunch of bullshit. But apparently the law needs to be explicit so the President can say any damn thing he pleases up there.
Second, as far as lying goes, in the one case we have a lie about a blowjob which has zero effect on anyone except him and his wife/family and on the other hand we have a set of lies/deceptions (not just one but many) that have resulted in hundreds of thousands dead/wounded, over a trillion dollars spent, international conventions violated and constitutional guarantees eroded or stomped on.
Of the two $40+ million was spent on investigating Clinton at the start for a $300,000 issue and landing him for a BJ. To date for Bush $0.00 spent on an independent investigation. Seem lopsided to you?
So I agree Clinton’s impeachment was a travesty but if the government saw fit to chase him for that do you not think what Bush is on about deserves LESS (as in no) investigation?
No. For the nth time, I’ll post this CBS poll taken just before Congress voted on the Iraq AUMF: War With Iraq: Americans In No Hurry.
Further:
Yeah, that’s a mislead public seething with anger and ready to kick some Arab ass.
Pertinent article Rosa Brooks, LA Times
Mind you, the conclusion is all we all know. The US does not enjoy the rule of law.
For ‘Americans’ read ‘Bush constituency’. I think most do in this event.
Another example of how wrong you go with only a little knowledge.
The articles of impeachment were gussied up to resemble the offense of perjury to deceive people just like Weirddave. Obviously this was highly effective. However, perjury is a complex and technical thing and the impeachment came nowhere near satisfying the substance of that offense.
It’s ‘Shalit’ by the way, whose wellbeing is another subject you need to research further.
If W-A-M wants to move the goal post in his argument, he can do so. But in that case, his argument doesn’t have any teeth. Bush didn’t need to “sell” the war to his own constituency-- he needed to sell it to Congress. They* bought it sight unseen.
*most of them
Just to clarify… there is a tendency for some posters here to blame our getting into the Iraq war on the US populace going somewhat insane with rage after 9/11 and just wanting to kick some random Arab butt without regard to the UN or what our allies thought. Certainly there was a minority of Americans who held that view, but not enough to explain why Congress gave Bush such a blank check to go to war-- especially since they voted down amendments to the AUMF that would have placed more Congressional approval in front of actually going to war if the inspectors weren’t let back in, or if they were and SH was found to be uncooperative.
That’s absolutely not true.
What are the elements of perjury in the federal sphere?
(1) A federal proceeding under oath;
(2) in which the accused makes a false statement;
(3) with knowledge of its falsity;
(4) where the statement is material to the proceeding.
The impeachment alleged precisely those facts. In what way was it deficient?
Huh?
Where did I do that? I was responding to you and plopped my goal post down, so to speak, staking out my notions. It seems it was in error but I do not remember changing the rules on you in there.
You didn’t. I was responding to Sevastopol, who interjecting himself into our argument. Sorry if that was confusing. I just wanted to be clear that I was arguing with you, and that I stick by argument unless you want to change it. I’m honestly not sure what argument Sevastopol is trying to make. But if is implying that all or most of Bush’s constituency wanted to kick some random Arab butt, then I’d like to see something more than his say-so to back that statement up.
We disagree. I think the number is adequate, noting office-holding relies on 2 things:
How many vote; &
How they vote.
In this system a minority who are enraged and insane have an effect out of proportion to their number.
My accusation is that the impeachment was a kangaroo court.
Now, ‘defendant’ rather than ‘accused’.
In substance, the above response states the positive elements but omits the technical detail of the defenses and other controlling circumstances surrounding perjury. These are as much constituents of the offense as its positive elements.
Consider for example the doctrines regarding proceedings bought for a collateral purpose. Similarly, the defenses and controlling circumstances surrounding perjury are crafted particularly to prevent proceedings commencing for the purpose of creating a subsequent perjury trial. But these are below the radar considerations that were severed in this case.
I don’t think this is a polite response to debate in good faith on an open forum.
What is impolite or bad faith about asking for a cite? You made a statement in GD which I don’t think is correct. If it is correct, then fight my ignorance. Or report my post to a moderator if you think it’s inappropriate for this forum.