Comments | docstrange: Politics: No more "and another thing"s, already!

docstrange

Politics: No more "and another thing"s, already!

Jul 04, 2007 11:33

My friend qwrrty is angry about the Libby commutation - as I think just about everyone has a right to be, and about which even many conservative libertarian types are pretty darned disapproving. Makes me angry, too. But then I already was angry at this administration - and this is a very small bit of straw to break the camel's back; more importantly, ( Read more... )

Comments 10

rmjwell July 4 2007, 21:23:23 UTC

If Bush and Cheney can be made to disappear because of the Libby pardon when the habeas suspension or the warrantless wiretapping or other affronts didn't, I'll be happy. Much like Capone and tax evasion, let's get the weasels out.

As to Pelosi's pledge of "no impeachment"... yeah, gutless or plan-less will do.

docstrange July 4 2007, 21:54:17 UTC

Hmm. If they can be made to "disappear" on such a perfectly legal nothing, then so can the next president... who you might like. Which is to say, you approve the complete disregard for the law by one party, but condemn it by the other? Sounds like a totalitarian stance, even if you want a beneficent dictator. Either everyone gets the rule of law, or in the end, no one will.

All or nothing means all you get is forms of tyranny. One reason we haven't had it in this country is taking "all" the federal government by a party didn't really mean total control. It seems no one these days remembers that the fed is a limited government. No, we just want "our" people in no matter what it takes, because it means all or nothing.

thewronghands July 5 2007, 02:03:00 UTC

That's one of the big reasons that I think we *should* impeach these guys... not over Scooter Libby (that was disgusting and revealing, but legal), but over their ridiculous expansion of executive power and gutting of oversight, as well as the war. I probably won't get my way on this, and I agree that rebuilding the balance of power is most important, but I think it's a grave injustice if we don't hold the current administration accountable for their assaults against the Constitution.

(The comment has been removed)

docstrange July 4 2007, 22:57:42 UTC

I do see that last point, but I have to say, it kind of freaks me out when a leftie talks about how we have to "send a message." To my ear, that's right-wing speak for "do what's legal or not, I don't care, but it is important HOW WE LOOK ( ... )

thewronghands July 5 2007, 01:55:37 UTC

I think there is some importance in sending a message -- not for partisan politics, but for global politics. I think it would do immense good for American public image for the world to see that we castigate and fire an administration for waging illegal war, lying to the people, and removing fundamental rights. (I wouldn't cry if they got impeached over Libby, but I think that's not the real reason to do it.) If we were willing to impeach Clinton and not W/Cheney, I think that does make us look awful in the eyes of the world, and does great harm to us as a nation. If Clinton had done anything as egregiously awful, I'd have been crying for his head on a platter too.

I am appalled and embarassed that our message to the world is "we don't care enough to have done anything about these guys, uh, sorry about all those deaths". Or worse, "Fuck yeah!".

docstrange July 5 2007, 02:41:25 UTC

Hmm. By "sending a message" I do mean acting because it's about our appearance, whether legal or not, about stretching things to make a case. Your reasoning on international opinion is maybe the only reasonable reason for "sending a message" I have heard - mind, we could also make it clear the Clinton impeachment was an unfortunate political farce, and instead of sending messages, make sure we work to actually repair the damage done. Mind, if there's evidence to nail the responsible people for heavy 4th A. abuses, I think it needs to be done. But there is a huge mess these fine elected people were supposed to fix, and all I see are the pet projects of the last 6 years being put forward.

How about, as cheesetruck says, starting to dismantle the portions of the PATRIOT Act that could only have passed because of the panic at the time, and because practically no one read it? How about figuring out how to handle Iraq after the seemingly inevitable total withdrawal, without callously leaving the country to its own personal genocidal civil war? Our ( ... )

also_huey July 4 2007, 23:19:26 UTC

qwrrty calls the Pelosi crew gutless for taking impeachment off the table. And I think that is a fair characterization.

It's not. Charlie Rangel was on the CSPAN book program, and they asked him if the democrats have given any serious consideration to impeachment, and his answer was very pragmatic: "No. We don't have the votes for it."

And he's right. The democrats can do more to accomplish good things in Congress right now by doing what they can to get past the previous six years of partisanship, and actually trying to reach across the aisle to make things happen (the immigration bill was a really nice attempt, even though it failed) than they can in pushing an entirely symbolic and ultimately futile impeachment effort.

The neocons are toast in a year and a half regardless. Instead of making everyone hold their breath until that happens, how about actually, y'know, doing some fucking work?

I say this as a lifelong Republican, who would still like to see Bush and Cheney impeached. Sadly, it ain't gonna happen - but that's not ( ... )

docstrange July 5 2007, 00:08:51 UTC

The neocons are toast in a year and a half regardless. Instead of making everyone hold their breath until that happens, how about actually, y'know, doing some fucking work?
Well that I agree with. I can't explain why things aren't getting done with a bipartisan effort, except, you know, that they ARE holding their breath in order not to Accomplish Anything That Might Be A Problem, in order to gain the presidency. And then do stuff without threat of a veto, which frankly, scares me. I am really most pleased with our national government when it's branches are divided and only What Needs Doing that Reasonable People Can Agree Upon gets done. Dominance by one party or political deadlock/brinksmanship is a despicable game played by those waiting for total power. Such people as play such games, neocon or neo-liberal, disturb me.

docstrange July 5 2007, 00:22:39 UTC

Well, I must be tired of politics - I used the wrong "its/it's" up there.

SIGH

cheesetruck July 5 2007, 02:06:33 UTC

on impeaching: Yeah sure whatever, impeach with a year left, great use of time there. "Gesture" and all that - ya know, we've been given a gesture every freaking day since a certain day in 2001 and NOW you're going to do something about it? How about this: instead of bitching that the Executive branch is being shitty, let's fix the legislative branch so they fucking do their job right. Impeach the fucking patriot act.

I know, wrong word, I don't care.

Point is: removing the needle that injected the fatal dose of heroin is NOT MAKING IT BETTER. Outlawing heroin? Gee thanks, how about I give you a gesture for your useless outlawing gesture. You should know it by now, America, it's the one that comes from the Executive branch. No, what needs to be done is to FIX THE PROBLEM WHERE PEOPLE GO "oh, ok, sure, heroin is good for me, whatever you say US Government." Followed by "thank you sir may i have another"