![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Trimming the Hedges...
Okay...
With the Occupation of Iraq continuing and the body count rising...
With the outing of a CIA operative under his watch...
With the government's response to two of the worst natural disasters the Gulf Coast has ever seen...
Is it any wonder why this country is losing its confidence in its leadership? Not only confidence, but the public trust.
Let me state that again. The public trust.
Not only is Shrub's popularity count down in the mid to low 30s, but his trustworthiness ratings have gone past the toilet, and are now on their way to the wastewater treatment plant.
Here's a man who acted on what he told us, in hindsight, was faulty intelligence about WMDs. Okay, we went in with that belief, all right, we can sort of get behind that. What? There are none? And now we're there to oust the country's leader for no real apparent reason? Hold the phone...
Anyone else out there think that our Leadless Fuhrers decided to go in there with this as the ulterior motive, and that the "WMDs" were a ruse?
Isn't this grounds for impeachment?
Let's do some comparison here...
Shrub has sent probably 80% of our military into Iraq and Afghanistan with not a lot of really good tangible results for the original reasons to be there. The death tolls, just from Iraq alone, are approaching 2100 men and women. No credible links to terrorism, and none of the biggies from Al Qaeda have been captured there, if I recall. We've ousted a country's leader, and pushed democracy in its place, but are meeting heavy resistance from insurgents, which is pushing both the military and civilian casualty rates through the roof. And what would we get out of it? Maybe a nickel off a gallon of gas, if we're lucky. Empire building at its finest, headed up by a man who's trying to fill Daddy's shoes... and probably has Daddy's hand stuck up his backside like a crazed ventriloquist's dummy.
Grounds for impeachment? He acted upon intelligence that he thought was good at the start, but turned out to be false, at least that's what he's told us. Did he know it was false in the beginning? Perhaps. In this case, the investigation is definitely worthwhile, and let's see if it's grounds for an impeachment hearing.
Will he get impeached? We'll see...
The last POTUS to be impeached was William Jefferson Clinton. Main reason? He got his knob shined.
Comparison: Rising death toll in a land where our popularity has more swinging than an elementary school playground at recess, based on intel he probably knew was bad intel.
Versus: A man who used a cigar as a Presidential Aid.
Y'know... looking at it like this, might as well impeach Shrub too, because like with the last one, someone's getting fucked...
With the Occupation of Iraq continuing and the body count rising...
With the outing of a CIA operative under his watch...
With the government's response to two of the worst natural disasters the Gulf Coast has ever seen...
Is it any wonder why this country is losing its confidence in its leadership? Not only confidence, but the public trust.
Let me state that again. The public trust.
Not only is Shrub's popularity count down in the mid to low 30s, but his trustworthiness ratings have gone past the toilet, and are now on their way to the wastewater treatment plant.
Here's a man who acted on what he told us, in hindsight, was faulty intelligence about WMDs. Okay, we went in with that belief, all right, we can sort of get behind that. What? There are none? And now we're there to oust the country's leader for no real apparent reason? Hold the phone...
Anyone else out there think that our Leadless Fuhrers decided to go in there with this as the ulterior motive, and that the "WMDs" were a ruse?
Isn't this grounds for impeachment?
Let's do some comparison here...
Shrub has sent probably 80% of our military into Iraq and Afghanistan with not a lot of really good tangible results for the original reasons to be there. The death tolls, just from Iraq alone, are approaching 2100 men and women. No credible links to terrorism, and none of the biggies from Al Qaeda have been captured there, if I recall. We've ousted a country's leader, and pushed democracy in its place, but are meeting heavy resistance from insurgents, which is pushing both the military and civilian casualty rates through the roof. And what would we get out of it? Maybe a nickel off a gallon of gas, if we're lucky. Empire building at its finest, headed up by a man who's trying to fill Daddy's shoes... and probably has Daddy's hand stuck up his backside like a crazed ventriloquist's dummy.
Grounds for impeachment? He acted upon intelligence that he thought was good at the start, but turned out to be false, at least that's what he's told us. Did he know it was false in the beginning? Perhaps. In this case, the investigation is definitely worthwhile, and let's see if it's grounds for an impeachment hearing.
Will he get impeached? We'll see...
The last POTUS to be impeached was William Jefferson Clinton. Main reason? He got his knob shined.
Comparison: Rising death toll in a land where our popularity has more swinging than an elementary school playground at recess, based on intel he probably knew was bad intel.
Versus: A man who used a cigar as a Presidential Aid.
Y'know... looking at it like this, might as well impeach Shrub too, because like with the last one, someone's getting fucked...
no subject
For the most part, the american people simply don't care. Or if they do care, they don't choose to expend any energy on that caring because it would take them out of their daily routine.
With Clinton, as I'm sure Daryl explained, there was a witch hunt out to get him thing going on.
With Bush, there's no witch hunt and unless the people (a significant minority, like say, 25%+ of the population) start clamoring for it, which would pretty much guarentee it'll happen regardless of findings (because that would impact the chances of the congress keeping their own hold), he'll finish out his term.
no subject
The only real way to end terrorism in the Middle East is to give people (especially the poor Muslims, which Al Qaeda and terror networks tend to recruit as cannon fodder and foot soldiers) is to give people in that region a sense of hope. I agreed that Saddam was a person in the region who not only caused the bordering nations to be fearful, but he is also a man who attacked Kuwait, gassed the Kurds (I know, our weapons, but that is like holding gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of the people who buy the weapons), fired missiles at American Aircraft which patrolled the no fly zone, tried to assassinate President Bush 41.
So, while I think getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, and we were generally received well by the Iraqis initially, there were issues that have lead to this operation pretty much being unsuccessful. I'll give you my top five, in no particular order, and my feelings on whether Bush was responsible.
1. Abu Ghraib- PR disaster. As a "security" force we were supposed to be getting rid of a guy who, with his sons, brutally tortured Iraqi prisoners. As a "security" force, we then not only go out, and torture these people, but actually document the entirety of these incidents. Stupid. This was a precursor to the eventual troubles we'd have, but I think this moment was probably the changing point in the majority of Iraqi minds about our intent there. The trial took too long. Punishment should have been swift and severe. This really isn't Bush's fault, as a couple of complete and total morons did this pretty much on their own. I blame them, and the C/Os.
2. Fallujah- Military disaster, PR train wreck. When the "civilian contractors" were brutally murdered by the terrorists within the city of Fallujah, there should have been swift and severe repercussions. I'd hate to say it, but it should have been on a level that deterred any future actions from the terrorists. Bush, scared of the ramifications of an assault on the city on the 2004 elections allowed that festering shit hole to continue to operate as a terrorist safe haven. Not only did this encourage the terrorists, it actually led to them gaining some sort of legitimacy as an insurgency. This action was the most counter productive measure of the entire war, and while keeping casualties to a minimum, at the time, has only further encouraged the blood bath. The explanation I would get out of some people in the right wing is "there was something important happening there, but I can't say anything about it". It there was a reason we waited so long, I'd REALLY like to know why.
3. Paul Bremer- Any military actions need soldiers. The so called insurgency in Iraq got many of its troops from the decision of L. Paul Bremer to completely and totally disband the entire Iraqi army as the interim leader of Iraq. So, basically, you have people who may or may not like you, but are serving under you, and you turn them completely loose, with out any jobs, on the country side. As an added bonus, these people are trained to kill. If the "insurgency" is fire, then this is the wood that was used to let it burn. I've got to believe that at some point, firing the entire Iraqi army was put past Bush in some form. Why he felt this was a good idea, I don't know... but it shows a complete detachment from reality.
Part II
4. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi/Muqtada Al-Sadr- The faces of the "revolution", so to speak. By allowing these two psychopaths to "rule the roost" seemingly completely unchecked. Al-Sadr has been linked to murder, and his followers to the murder of US troops. I think we all know Al-Zarqawi's track record, from the Nick Berg beheading to the hotel bombings last week in Jordan. One has been open and public (Al-Sadr) and continually thumbs his nose at the American presence in Iraq. The other has been viscously cruel, especially to foreigners, and those that aid foreigners. Neither one has felt any true pressure (or have been eliminated) by the U.S. Military. Why the U.S. Military has yet to handle this situation, I don't know. I blame this more on the U.S. Military heads in Iraq, and I am unsure if Bush has the time to check intelligence and formulate a plan for every detail in Iraq.
5. The inability to articulate, as easily as say, I don't know, me... why we were over there in the first place. Hell, even the American public doesn't but into this war any more. How the hell are we expecting the Iraqi people to do so? Terrorism will not die when Osama, Zarqawi or any other terrorist leader is gone. It will be gone when we have not only responsible governments in the Middle East who prosecute these types of criminals, but the people over there believe in those governments...
no subject
Once we are out, I really think that Iraq should maybe spend a few months, with out foreign press there, taking some of these "insurgents" and other terrorists out to the proverbial woodshed. American's doing this is akin to war crimes. Iraqis doing this might be much more well accepted, or some what tolerated.
I'm pretty sure it is the same action the new U.S. government took when it came to dealing with the Tories here. Different day, different age. This battle can't be won based on public opinion though.
I'm going to guess, for election time in 2008, we will be almost completely out of there.
Ummmm... Since Bush was selected in 2000, is it possible for him to get elected in 2008?
(history of) presidential scandals
1980 -- Ronald Reagan assumes office, lauded as 'the Great Communicator' despite possibly grappling with senile-onset Alzheimers from the very beginning of his first term. Powerful anti-Communist sentiment (coupled with action), paradoxically coupled with repeated arms/vehicular sales to Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, Iraqis and Mojahedin. (The most (in)famous of these came to be known as Irangate.)
1988 -- George Herbert Walker Bush assumes office. Largely branded as a "wimp" and ineffectual speaker, despite several brilliant late-term speeches. Economy suffers during this presidency, possibly due to Reaganomics backlash. Bush is implicated in no 'scandal' of which I am aware, besides playing tennis throughout his 8-hr Acting Presidency during which surgeons were removing .22 bullets from Reagan's thorassic cavity. Ironically, Bush 41's most lasting present-day criticism is for liberating Kuwait BUT LETTING THE IRAQI (HUSSEIN) ADMINISTRATION REMAIN IN POWER; this will have unforeseen consequences when George Walker Bush (Bush 43) assumes the presidency in 2000.
1992 -- William Jefferson Clinton assumes office. Numerous marital infidelities surface, some publicized (Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky), others settled quietly (Gennifer Flowers, Elizabeth Gracen); these do not sway the American people _until_ affadavits of uncertain truthfulness are submitted before a grand jury, leading to perjury/impeachment proceedings. Fiscal malfeasance of uncertain scope are discovered (Whitewater realty ventures, bailed/bought out by a false-front company using Arkansan state funds)... this scandal caused at least one suicide (Vincent Foster). Although less publicized, some 'damage' was dealt to the traditional executive-legislative-judicial system during Clinton's presidency, most notably the line-item veto and independent-counsel statutes.
2000 -- George Walker Bush assumes office. Some mid-grade pocket-lining is suspected here (chiefly concerning the Halliburton Corporation and big-oil money); additionally, the second-generation Iraqi war garners much less support than its 1990 predecessor, though no 'scandal' per se is attached to this UNTIL the Valerie Plame/Wilson CIA leak, which seems to stem from an internal memo/effort to smearing and discredit outspoken war critic Joseph Wilson. Joseph Wilson's (seemingly-substantiated) material may prove that Bush's 2002 "Saddam Hussein is purchasing uranium in Africa" was inaccurate and/or falsified, making this a (as-yet-unresolved) scandal within a scandal.
----------------------------------------
I went into such detail here because I think it's important to rank these things in order of priority, NOT media attention. If Bush-43 is guilty of sparking international conflict based on incomplete/not-wholly-truthful premises, it is perhaps on par with Reagan's backing of death squads and foreign rebellions; while extremely unethical (to the point of possibly qualifying as a 'war crime'), I don't believe this threatens individual credibility on the same scale as, say, domestic embezzlement or repeated untruthfulness under oath.
Further, all three of these scandals are (IMHO) light-years more egregious than Nixon's staff pilfering through a rival's campaign materials, though the Plame/Wilson fiasco comes closest. Based on precedent and comparisons above, I do not believe such involvement merits impeachment -- unless G.W. stands before a grand jury and issues false testimony in the next 30-60 days, which (assuming he has competent legal counsel) he is unlikely to do.
-- Sven
no subject
:must be the Californian in me talking: