Should Bush Be Impeached?
(Because it has generated a rather lively debate, this post will stay on top through the 23rd.
Read down the page for newer posts.)
More Good Info at People Covered in Fish.
I bring up this subject because a liberal opinion writer, Dan Froomkin, of the Washington Post's (misnamed) online blog "White House Briefing" has decided today to toss out every name he can find that has mentioned, as he calls it, the "I" word.
I pick on Dan, and the title of his online column, because his column is no more a White House Briefing than my blog is a home decorating idea center. Were he to name it "White House Bashing", then it would at least accurately convey his style.
Froomkin has rolled out anyone who's used the word "Impeachment" about Bush and the spying program for today's opinion piece. Newsweek, CNN, the NY Times, etc have all gone ga-ga over the idea of impeachment.
I for one think it might not be a bad idea. I agree with Jonah Goldberg at National Review, when he says:
In fact, much like the Clinton impeachment for getting a little in the Oval Office, I think most American's would see it not as trying to protect their rights, but instead as political retribution.
In fact, this is almost a perfect example of the Democrats being out of ideas of their own, and borrowing them from the GOP, even if they are bad ones.
So, if the Dem's take back the House in '06; which I believe is much less likely than they do; I say bring it on! And make sure when you do, you bring all the big guns with you. Get Hillary, John Edwards, John Warner, and everyone else who might run in '08 on tape supporting it.
I actually think one of the first bits of defense work by the President would be this quote:
Macsmind has a great piece on this issue over at his blog. Read it here.
12/23- Tom Daschle and Charles Krauthammer both have op/ed pieces on the NSA and impeachement issues.
Technorati Tags: court president impeach spying
Read down the page for newer posts.)
More Good Info at People Covered in Fish.
I bring up this subject because a liberal opinion writer, Dan Froomkin, of the Washington Post's (misnamed) online blog "White House Briefing" has decided today to toss out every name he can find that has mentioned, as he calls it, the "I" word.
I pick on Dan, and the title of his online column, because his column is no more a White House Briefing than my blog is a home decorating idea center. Were he to name it "White House Bashing", then it would at least accurately convey his style.
Froomkin has rolled out anyone who's used the word "Impeachment" about Bush and the spying program for today's opinion piece. Newsweek, CNN, the NY Times, etc have all gone ga-ga over the idea of impeachment.
I for one think it might not be a bad idea. I agree with Jonah Goldberg at National Review, when he says:
"..The main reason Bush's poll numbers would skyrocket if he were impeached is that at the end of the day the American people will support what he did. The legal defense of Bush's ongoing use of warrantless wiretaps is debatable. But the political case for what he did is rock-solid."
In fact, much like the Clinton impeachment for getting a little in the Oval Office, I think most American's would see it not as trying to protect their rights, but instead as political retribution.
In fact, this is almost a perfect example of the Democrats being out of ideas of their own, and borrowing them from the GOP, even if they are bad ones.
So, if the Dem's take back the House in '06; which I believe is much less likely than they do; I say bring it on! And make sure when you do, you bring all the big guns with you. Get Hillary, John Edwards, John Warner, and everyone else who might run in '08 on tape supporting it.
I actually think one of the first bits of defense work by the President would be this quote:
Then, when the Democrats realize that playing politics with national security is a very bad public relations move, especially when the same tactics were used in their "model" administration, it'll be too late for 2008.Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Macsmind has a great piece on this issue over at his blog. Read it here.
12/23- Tom Daschle and Charles Krauthammer both have op/ed pieces on the NSA and impeachement issues.
Technorati Tags: court president impeach spying
posted by Crazy Politico at 10:59 PM
19Comments:
From Jonah's article
Barbra Streisand: "Bush can't be president, I don't like him."
The voice fo the modern liberal.
If Babs is the moderate liberal, I don't want to meet the far left :)
Should Bush be impeached?
Nope.
He doesn't have half the stuff Clinton did and HE did get impeached.
Buch is an angel comparatively speaking.
Just dropped by to say:
Merry Christmas!!!!
And if you're into P.C. then,
Happy Holidays....
I'm a Christmas gal myself.
TTFN!!
No matter how good it could be politically Bush & impeached don't belong in the same sentence. I'm almost in shock at the audacity of liberals with the bazillion of scandals with the Clintons and they're upset with Bush for what?
No, no, no. This is just more gawddamned noise plugging up what could be the goals of a great country. We give the little voices way too much. If you're in the minority guess what -- the majority of world does not agree.
Impeachment is unthinkable as it will be what happens as revenge for eveyone who'd dare hold the office in future.
Coyote, read down a few posts, you'll find a link to Clinton's executive order that allowed unannounced entry searches, roving wiretaps, etc, with both ends in the country.
Carters is also in that post. And he was Prez when FISA was made law!
Bush has been very clear, and a couple of FISA judges have agreed, that these taps were only when calls from terrorists were coming into the US, not general roving of conversations.
Finally, answer this honestly, if you can, would you be pissed if the Brooklyn Bridge had been dropped, and then found out that we could have stopped it, but didn't do a tap because we didn't know the name or phone number of who a call was going to when it was ordered?
Coyote, you realize the reference section you posted, and the section referenced by Clinton are two different things, right?
Your lack of oversight fear is also misplaced. In 2001, 2002 and up to today the heads of the intel committees and House and Senate leadership have been briefed on this.
At any point in '01 through Jan 03, when the Democrats controlled the Senate committee Rockefeller, Graham or Leahy could have called for a hearing if this program was such a problem. They didn't. In fact it wasn't until July '03 that any (Rockefeller) said they had a problem. Even up to today, they could call them, based on the charter of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The idea that the Senate and House seemed to believe they were absolved of all oversight because the President said it was a secret program is what worries me more.
Rememeber, in a system of checks and balances, one only gains ultimate power by another abdicating it. In this case, congress seems to have abdicated their oversight power, possibly for political reasons.
What may ultimately bite congress, not the president, in the ass on this is Gonzalez's news conference, where he made it clear, 3 or 4 times, that the (at the time) leadership in congress made it clear they wouldn't attempt to alter FISA to work better against newer threats/technologies.
One other tidbit on this, from the Gonzalez news conference:
Sir, during his confirmation hearings, it came out that now-Ambassador Bolton had sought and obtained NSA intercepts of conversations between American citizens and others. Who gets the information from this program; how do you guarantee that it doesn't get too widely spread inside the government, and used for other purposes?
That question seems to indicate more than a few members of congress (and the press) knew something was going on with NSA and US Citizens much earlier this year,when Bolton's original hearings started. Why didn't they ask more then?
Look, I think it's legitimate to say, hey, I'd rather be blown up by terrorists than take the chance some guvmint dude might listen in on my phone sex convos.
It's just that most peeps don't feel that way. They would trade a little phone freedom/privacy for more security. We all have to draw the line somewhere--and it's good to argue about where.
I agree Paula, especially reading the limits they've put on it. It's not like they are tapping my calls to 1-976 numbers or my kids, but calls coming into the country from elsewhere.
I guess one of the things that bugs me are the same folks who bitch that Bush/Clinton screwed up by not getting good intel on this type of stuff Pre-9/11 are the ones who are now bitching about the type of stuff that would have been required to get that info.
Well, crap--where am I supposed to get home decorating ideas now, Mr. Politics?
"How many people have said "Just Trust Me" to the detriment of the Human Race much less this country?"
Jimmy Carter comes most readily to mind.
Oh, and Merry Christmas, Crazy!!!
Jeff, you forgot Nixon/Ford with the price controls and Whip Inflation Now!
As for the decorating ideas, I'm too straight to give those :)
Merry Christmas.
Crazy: Some great responses to the lib. Have a Merry Christmas!!!
Seriously, I don't have any memory of either Nixon or Ford using the phrase "Trust me". But Carter used it all the time. And of course, he used daughter Amy as a source for ideas...
Look, the government has limited resources. Why would they waste time and money listening to Paula's phone sex convos unless the guy on the other end was Bin Laden??? Get a grip, people.
Just kidding there, Paula, about the phone sex thing. I mean, I don't think people will figure out I wasn't joking. I think I covered up pretty good. ;o)>
Actually, Coyote, if you read the article, the one in the NYTimes, and the WaPo, it's a database of calling patterns they've given the feds. No personally identifiable info is given until they request it on a specific number.
Out of that database, they look for patterns of calls to/from out fo the US places, and then try and correlate them to the numbers they've captured in various instances.
BTW, I still think it's justifiable, and well within the constitution. Sorry.
BTW, the paranoia express is leaving for noon to head to Canada if you wanna catch a ride.
Coyote, perhaps you should howl up another tree.
It just MIGHT be that the reason your carcass is still hear to gripe about Bush is due to the fact that the NSA program worked as intended and thwarted terrorist attacks that would otherwise have turned you to a worthless pile of ashes.
Coyote, they also traded a lot of their rights for personal safety, specifically the founders. You might go back and read about some of the things they did in the name of security to win a war. Granted, it was before they wrote the constitution.
Given the choice between the supposed loss of liberty I've suffered since 2001 or the actual feeling of safety and government involvement in gaining that safety, I'll take the actual, and deal with the supposed.
I understand your point of view, and in a hypothetical perfect world, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, I live in an actual, imperfect world. I've carried dead bodies from terrorist attacks, and worse, the one's who didn't die.
If it takes checking phone call patterns and e-mail habits to prevent me from doing that again, I'll make sure they have the correct IP address to check on me from.
Post a Comment
<< Home