Letters to the Editor
EMStoveken
Published Letters: 391 Editor's Choice: 44
-
Some logic
[Read the article: Oversight is for wimps]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Very well, let's look at this logically. For starters, Anonymous has consistently said that the charges of impeachment would be subject to US Supreme Court interpretation. This is only tenuously defensible. The final result of the entire impeachment process is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme court. However, the Senate makes the determination based on the arguements put forth by the House.
Furthermore, starting the process of impeachment does not require Supreme Court involvement or blessing. It only requires a simple majority in the House of Representatives in favor of Articles of Impeachment. Once passed, the parties named in said Articles are said to be "under impeachment" and Congress' investigative powers are substantially expanded.
This is the part of the process I consider to be of the most importance. You see, there is already enough evidence (despite historic stonewalling) that this administration has committed impeachable offences. Bush's signing statements instructing enforcement branches to disregard entire provisions of congressionally passed laws, comes to mind as an excellent example of violatation of the Oath of Office.
The financial windfalls going to Vice President Cheney (in the form of a deferred trust) from Halliburton's contracts reflects a clear conflict of interest that could be seen as a sophisticated form of bribery.
There is significant reason to believe that intelligence was falsified and manipulated to build a case for the invasion of Iraq. Impeachment level investigation can go a long way towards confirming or denying this possibility.
While Saddam Hussein and Family were clearly tyrants and despots who were unfit to lead, Iraq was not an immediate threat to the United States and was entirely unrelated to the attacks of September 11, 2001. This makes our invasion of their country a war crime.
An impeachment level investigation of the Executive Branch (on par with the Starr Report) would have a very good chance of turning up volumes of additional hard evidence of a variety of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Once the evidence is unearthed (the real point of impeachment) no one will be able to defend the administration's actions without opening displaying themselves as a puppet of a dictatorship.
If no sufficient evidence is revealed (provided that the Administration was cooperative, as required by law) then so much the better. We learn that the Administration, while crass and bullying, acted within the realm of law. And future presidents will understand the scrutiny their actions will face.
Again, what makes me brand you as some strange partisan hack is your intense desire to make the futility of impeachment seem like conventional wisdom, common knowledge, standard operating procedure.
We do not need the SCOTUS' blessing to begin Impeachment. There is sufficient evidence to begin the process.
You do raise a valid point as to why the Democrats in Congress are not doing more. It is most likely a combination of cowardice and the false belief that it would be futile.
Not only that, but you have again shown your bias is comparing the concept of the Unitary Executive to the restrictions on State's rights (primarily of secession) after the Civil War. We've gotten along OK as a Democracy with those alterations. You seem to think we would be just as fine with a dictatorial head of state. Neo-con thinking at its most insidious, my friend.
Again, it may not work, but it is vital that we try.
-
Ah circular logic . . .
[Read the article: Oversight is for wimps]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The circle grows all the more vicious and the wheel of karma continues to turn knocking aside the weak and crushing the bones of our fallen idols.
Anonymous' initial illusion of thoughtfulness has given way to the victory through repetition parrotry that is the hallmark of modern American pseudo-discourse.
Anyone as hellbent on making impeachment sound futile is either drinking or dispensing the Kool-Aid.
I bid you adieu.
-
She should have taken it further . . .
[Read the article: The presidential Hillary Clinton?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tim, why are you are trying to prompt a discussion which will add to our media's depiction of conflict with Iran as an inevitability, when the same issue can be discussed without hypotheticals or mention of Iran?
Russert has shown himself to be another neo-con/administration shill.
-
Of course, if you listen to her answer
[Read the article: The presidential Hillary Clinton?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She said yes.
She said that she supports Israel's attack on Syria in spite of knowing nothing more than rudimentary details and hearsay.
Clearly, if the attack had been on Iran with the same sketchy justification she would have been in favor of that as well.
Nice ploy on Clinton's part. Downplaying the IRAN issue for those who do not want to hear it being discussed as an inevitability while sending a message to the warmongers that she would be just fine with Israel doing whatever it deems necessary.
Presidential, indeed.
Terrifying stuff.