Saturday, October 6, 2007

10-6-07: Postseason and Follow-up on Bush Impeachment

It's been an interesting post-season so far. Nice little win for the Red Sox last night. Let's see what they can do in Anaheim. I fell asleep before Ramirez's home-run. That's what happens when they START GAMES AT 8:30PM. I hate TBS. 8:30 play-off game? At least it's not an 8:00PM Red Sox vs. Yankees game on a Sunday night at Fenway. I already had that a few weeks ago. Boy, was I ever productive at work on Monday. Amazing.

Thanks to those few people who get Google Notifier alerts about certain topics for making comments on a few of my recent posts. I got a good one from some one named Causal about my post yesterday. I'd just like to highlight a few things he said. First off, I respect your opinion, and think you're a smart individual, Causal. I won't dispute your ability to formulate a good argument. Instead, I just want to point out a few things.

"Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it."

True. That's completely valid, and I agree with you. Lawlessness should never be allowed. But, in this particular case, you're pointing out an extreme. You're using the slippery slope mentality, indirectly, to argue that what is happening is currently, or is leading to, complete lawlessness. However, what MIGHT be happening is a bit of a disagreement on the current state of lawmaking. The Patriot Act is the hot topic, and parts of it have been found to be unconstitutional, but it is not necessarily Bush. It's Congress. You're placing blame on one person, which is oversimplifying.

"Some previous impeachment attempts were considered a waste of time because they were pursued for things that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the Impeachment tool was intended for. The argument that we can't impeach Bush because there are previous presidents who also did bad things is the same as the argument you might hear from your child that you shouldn't punish him because the neighbor's kid did the same thing and didn't get punished."

Ah, an argument by analogy. Always a fun one. I'll let the "Bush is like a child" inference go, though. Let's just address the first part of that paragraph. As soon as you start using the subjective approach to impeachment proceedings, you leave yourself open to criticism. Who decides when it's a waste of time? The people? Congress? My mentioning of previous Presidents, namely FDR, was to point out the situational similarities, not to make an excuse to just not do it altogether. People nowadays seem to jump on the impeachment bandwagon because they see everything and anything the President does that they disagree with, then, after a while, add it all up and shout for impeachment. Looking back at history, there are cases where Presidents made decisions they felt were right that blatantly violated the Constitution AT THAT TIME. But, laws were passed afterward and things are different. It's all part of the changing political dynamics. The world changes, and to continually use the slippery slope mentality, as I will point out in the next part of the comment, is not solid logic.

"Besides, Bush can still do a lot of damage. Our troops, Iran, and our Supreme Court are all endangered so long as he remains in office. Waiting until Bush is out of office will leave us complicit in any further crimes he commits. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the death toll from a "tactical" nuclear weapon of the kind Bush is contemplating using in Iran would be at minimum 3 million men, women, and children. The path of death would stretch across country boundaries into India."

This is blatant ignorance on your part, Causal, I'm sorry. The other day, a bill passed through the Senate (vote was 76-22) known as the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Many people are crying out that it's another step towards war with Iran. Basically, it states that Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard is a terrorist organization, and more money should be spent by the U.S. to deal with that group. Here's a quote from the bill: "It should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran." You are placing ALL of the blame on "war-hungry George Bush," and yet you mention nothing about this amendment. How do you expect the Senate to impeach such a "dangerous man" if they are passing laws like this?

You and I don't live in the same reality, Causal, but I admire your determination.

No comments: