Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Will George Bush Be Impeached?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Will George Bush Be Impeached?

    The war that will not end
    http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...l_not_end.html

    By Simon Jeffery / World news 05:00pm

    It is, without doubt, the worst prediction I ever made. Shortly before the Iraq war I was – as was the fashion back then – arguing with friends about geopolitics when I said I did not believe history would judge the impending conflict to be as important as we did at the time.

    It would be seen, I suggested, as the sad and sorry coda to 12 years of disastrous western policy towards Iraq, stretching from the betrayal of the Shia uprising after the 1991 Gulf war through more than a decade of sanctions and bombing raids.

    I was clearly wrong.

    Part of that was my failure - but more damningly the Pentagon's - to foresee the collapse of postwar Iraq in a manner that makes even the use of the word "postwar" read like a sick joke.

    The three-week invasion that ended with US troops toppling Saddam's statue in Baghdad is in danger of turning into a three-year crisis: more than 900 people killed since May 3 and thousands more before. The peace studies professor Paul Rogers, writing on the excellent Open Democracy, calls it an "unwinnable war". The Abu Ghraib prison abuses and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's murderous campaigns will sear the conflict into the history books for a while to come.

    Another factor has been the refusal of the war's original opponents, and those who came on board later, to let go of the arguments.

    The war has remained roughly as important as they wanted it to as the relentless questioning of the motives and methods of the political leaders who started it has, in Britain at least, been a dominant thread of recent politics.

    The Hutton inquiry, the campaigns to see the attorney general's full legal advice and the decline in Tony Blair's personal popularity - which has a lot to do with whether or not he lied over WMD - all go back to the war.

    What was not seized on so strongly - or at least became overshadowed by other events - was the leak of a 2002 Downing Street memo to the Sunday Times in the week before the May 5 general election.

    In it, Whitehall officials noted that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

    It was, the Guardian reported, evidence that Mr Blair was "privately preparing to commit Britain to war and topple Saddam" almost a year before the invasion.

    The latest issue of the New York Village Voice has a good primer. Why now, you may wonder. Well, it is because - as the Village Voice puts it - after several weeks in which the editorial pages of some of the US's biggest newspapers, including USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, all ignored it, smaller outlets and groups such as Democracy Now have pushed it to a higher profile. Daily Kos launched a campaign to "lift the virtual news blackout" on the story.

    In the most recent development, senior Democrats in the US congress yesterday convened a public meeting to call for a full investigation into the Downing Street memo. As this CBS news story explains, George Bush has always maintained that the use of force was a last resort, but the memo "could be the first documentary proof that [he] deceived the American people".

    That could be a problem for the president. Campaigners such as After Downing Street want an inquiry to determine whether Mr Bush misled congress. If he did, it could be an impeachable offence.

    Mr Bush's spokesman accused the congressmen of "simply trying to rehash old debates", and the White House refused to respond to requests for an inquiry. A piece in Salon (very readable) asks whether it is "just hearsay, or the new Watergate tapes".

    Whichever it may be, what is all too obvious is that the Iraq war and its aftermath are not going to go away quietly any time soon. Historians will certainly be writing about it.
    The cat spread its wings and flew high into the air, hovering to keep pace with them as they moved cautiously toward the city. Then, as they climbed over the rubble of what had once been a gateway and began to make their way through piles of weed-grown masonry, the cat flew to the squat building with the yellow dome upon its roof. It flew twice around the dome and then came back to settle on Jhary's shoulder. - The King of the Swords

  • #2
    Had you worded your poll question, "Should George Bush Be Impeached?" I'd have voted in the resoundingly affirmative. But that's not what you asked and so I have voted, with a forlorn sigh, my pessimistic choice.

    The man 'won' two terms in office and continues to have gaggles of staunch (albeit woefully thickheaded and simple-minded) supporters both civilian and in public office. I doubt these simpletons will turn on their idiot leader and I fear the rational public won't be enough to bring him down.

    I sincerely hope I am wrong.
    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

    Comment


    • #3
      Had I asked "should", the conversation would likely veer to the uglier debates of last year.

      I guess, since he wasn't under oath, that he won't be.
      The cat spread its wings and flew high into the air, hovering to keep pace with them as they moved cautiously toward the city. Then, as they climbed over the rubble of what had once been a gateway and began to make their way through piles of weed-grown masonry, the cat flew to the squat building with the yellow dome upon its roof. It flew twice around the dome and then came back to settle on Jhary's shoulder. - The King of the Swords

      Comment


      • #4
        It's mostly a numbers game, as far as impeachment goes. Republicans -- despite a recent tendency for a few to waffle when party lines are drawn -- generally will not permit this debate to go very far. The situation in the Senate and the House is different from what it was during the Clinton brouhaha. In that case, he was popular, too, but he had a hostile, rather idealogical congress that was out for blood. They nearly took him down for (what I regard as) sexual peccadilloes, which had nothing to do with matters of public policy.

        GWB and his droogies pretty much control the "hearts and minds" of the people in his party. (When you've got 'em by the b*lls, their hearts and minds will follow.) The Republicans aren't such idiots that they'd do what some Senate Democrats did, and vote against a sitting president of their own party.

        So my (long-winded) point is I never expect this to become more than continuous background carping. Unlike the Clinton fiasco, this WAS a matter of public policy, and it certainly appears that crimes were committed. But the fix is in. :roll:

        Many people might ask, also, do we really want to see another series of impeachment proceedings by our dysfunctional government?

        LSN

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Berry Sizemore
          Had I asked "should", the conversation would likely veer to the uglier debates of last year.
          I'll do my best not to be any more confrontational to those on the Right than I was in my last post. Promise.

          Originally posted by LSN
          ...do we really want to see another series of impeachment proceedings by our dysfunctional government?
          I'd gladly sit through it all if it meant seeing Dubya booted out of office in disgrace. Why? Because that one event would restore at least some of my faith that my countrymen haven't completely lost their values.
          "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
          --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

          Comment


          • #6
            I sincerely hope they do impeach him - but almost without doubt the b*stard will go scott free, and do his 20 years on the lecture circuit.
            Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

            Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

            Comment


            • #7
              Well with my slight understanding, & with the Senate & the House being dominated by the religious right, then no he won't be impeached.
              Arioch, aid me! Blood and souls for Arioch!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by silverhand
                Well with my slight understanding, & with the Senate & the House being dominated by the religious right, then no he won't be impeached.
                Neither the House nor the Senate is "dominated by the religious right". REPUBLICANS outnumber Democrats by a slight margin, but by a long margin, not every Republican is an advocate of the religious right. Depending on how you define it, those that would from a religious standpoint comprise the "religious right" only make up about 10% to 15% of the US population as a whole, and it is a falacy to think that all are Republicans (see Georgia for example).

                He won't be impeached for the simple legal reason that there is not evidence of any wrongdoing that meets the required burden of proof. I realize this is a very cynical site prone to erring on the side of an anarchist's point of view, but the fact is, this is not comparable to Clinton's situation for the simple reason that many Democrats found their hands tied: Clinton committed a felony. For those not familiar with US law, that is a crime for which the potential jail time is in excess of one year; a serious offense that does not incorporate ANY concession for the subject of the crime (i.e. lying under oath about infidelity is no different - lesser or greater - than lying about anything else). There was incontrovertible videotaped proof that he lied under oath.

                Here, much of the "lying" is on the order of Bush saying there was "contact" between Iraq and al Qaeda, "contact" meaning "at least one time there was communication of any kind between the two entities at any level of the organization and about any topic", and a critic interpreting that as "ongoing, in-depth paramilitary, terrorist coordination with an intent to commit a world-scale terrorist act of which both parties will lay claim", and then accusing Bush of lying when the misinterpretation turns out not to be accurate. That is NOT perjury in any way shape or form.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bill
                  Depending on how you define it, those that would from a religious standpoint comprise the "religious right" only make up about 10% to 15% of the US population as a whole, and it is a falacy to think that all are Republicans (see Georgia for example).
                  Well, yes, it does depend on how you define "Religious Right". In the very title is the word "Right." I don't know too any Democrats that fit that description. So, I'm going to venture that those in the Religious Right are indeed Republicans (or at least conservative, whatever they call themselves).

                  Congress isn't ruled by the Religious Right, it is true, but the fact that it is controlled by Republicans means that Bush's lies (cf. Downing Street Memo for just one plain example) won't be paraded about for all to see as Clinton's lies regarding his personal sex life were. If you disagree, then riddle me this: Why were Clinton's lies about his affair our business but Bush's lies about the reasons for going to war aren't?

                  Originally posted by Bill
                  He won't be impeached for the simple legal reason that there is not evidence of any wrongdoing that meets the required burden of proof.
                  Yeah, and neither did Michael Jackson. Look, have you read the Downing Street Memo? It is evidence of corruption most foul, but we've not had it put before Bush for answers. He's avoided it. This is how it goes when evidence is downplayed or ignored outright: the guilty get away with it. Had certain pieces of solid evidence been allowed in the MJ trial, he'd be in prison right now. And if Bush were to be made to come clean, so would he.

                  Supress the proof and you're innocent? That's crap. It's the American Way, but it's still crap.

                  Originally posted by Bill
                  I realize this is a very cynical site prone to erring on the side of an anarchist's point of view...
                  Anarchists? Dude, whatever. I thought you were above this.

                  Originally posted by Bill
                  There was incontrovertible videotaped proof that he lied under oath.
                  Oh, now I see the justification. None of Bush's lies were spoken under oath. So, starting a war that has killed 1700+ Americans based on lies is okay because he didin't lie under oath. Gotcha. Thanks for the intimate insight into right-wing thought.

                  Originally posted by Bill
                  Here, much of the "lying" is on the order of Bush saying there was "contact" between Iraq and al Qaeda, "contact" meaning "at least one time there was communication of any kind between the two entities at any level of the organization and about any topic..."
                  And were "contact" to be true to your definition, do you then agree it was justification for war? One contact about any topic?

                  Bill, look into why we went into Vietnam. Study closely the actions of Kennedy and McNamara and then tell me, without stuttering or cracking a smile, that the Bush administration made a reasonable "intelligence error" regarding Iraq. Fact is, Bush et. al. built facts to support his desire to attack Saddam. He lied to the American people and our soldiers are dying. But you defend him simply because those lies were not under oath. Wow.
                  "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                  --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The fact of the matter is that lying is not a crime, lying under oath is. Regardless of what you think of W, he didn't commit a crime, he's not going to be impeached. If you think he should be, take a minute to reflect; eventually there's going to be a Democrat in office, do you really want to set the presidenta of impeaching the President just because people disagree with his policies? Remember, it was lying under oath, not extra marital sex that got Clinton in trouble. If congress didn't need an excuse for impeachment, think of how they would have acted.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Seebass
                      The fact of the matter is that lying is not a crime, lying under oath is. Regardless of what you think of W, he didn't commit a crime...
                      Yes, we've established that.

                      So you're on board with the "lying to the people is okay as long as it's not under oath" thing -- that's your prerogative.

                      Originally posted by Seebass
                      ...eventually there's going to be a Democrat in office, do you really want to set the presidenta of impeaching the President just because people disagree with his policies?
                      If a president's policies involve lying to the American people in order to start an unwinnable war, then I would absolutely want that president impeached regardless of their party affiliation.

                      So, Kitsune -- I mean Seebass -- have you read the Downing Street Memo? Got an opinion on that? I mean, regardless of whether he was under oath, don't you feel crappy knowing this great president you support lied to start a war? Doesn't that bother you?
                      "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                      --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm not saying I support lying, I'm just saying it's not impeachable.

                        As for the Downing Street Memo; I'm not sure. We've already sceen that Bush's opponants are just as willing to lie and forge documents to discredit him, making it really hard to know if this Memo is real or not.

                        I've gone from using my net alias to my real name because the Kitsune account was corrupted, I've never pretended to be someone else. I'm going to assume that the hostility implied by "Kitsune -- I mean Seebass" came from me reading something into the statement that wasn't intendead, as I previusly would have belived you were above that sort of thing.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Seebass
                          As for the Downing Street Memo; I'm not sure. We've already sceen that Bush's opponants are just as willing to lie and forge documents to discredit him, making it really hard to know if this Memo is real or not.
                          Oh, right. Everything good we hear is the truth and everything bad is made up to discredit him. Of course.

                          Originally posted by Seebass
                          I've gone from using my net alias to my real name because the Kitsune account was corrupted, I've never pretended to be someone else. I'm going to assume that the hostility implied by "Kitsune -- I mean Seebass" came from me reading something into the statement that wasn't intendead, as I previusly would have belived you were above that sort of thing.
                          :roll: Dude, calm down. There was no hostility about your change in username. I mentioned your previous alias so that people reading this debate who are unfamiliar with your beliefs and methods could check out the Kitsune profile and get an idea what you are about.

                          Get over yourself and stick to the topic.
                          "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                          --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            PWV, you have to get over it, there are people out there, regardless of their spelling, who belive that lying is perfectly alright to defeat a bunch of blood thirsty subhumans who sit on the oil that they need to keep their a/c and humvees going. If it costs a few soldiers' lives, too bad (but maybe this is forged anyway), but these never intendead sacrifices are just collateral damages in a Holy and Christian Cause, even if the late Pope was against it (if that is true at all). Please accept this reality and don't waste your time, for your own sake.
                            Google ergo sum

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Thanks, L'E. I know I can't wisen up the world, but I also have a hard time keeping my mouth shut in the face of such obtuse idealism.

                              And you're right, it is a waste of time, especially when people are so busy looking for ways to become a victim that they ignore entire points of the debate in favor of posting paranoid rants.
                              "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                              --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X