Democrats & Liberals Archives

What a difference an election makes

The White House announced that the domestic surveillance program, the secret NSA program of listening in on email and phone conversations of American citizens, was now, surprisingly, under the watchful eye of the FISA court. (link)

I wondered about the new 'about face', or what some might refer to the decision as a 'flip-flop' (I should go up on Ebay and see if anyone is selling the Kerry flip-flops, so prominent in the 2004 election, and send a set to the White House). What new information forced the White House to change its course? For over a year, the White House was adamantly defiant of the FISA court and hypothesized about Executive power to run such a program. So…what changed?

Wasn't it King George who declared:

"I have the authority, both from the Constitution and the Congress, to undertake this vital program"

Or when his faithful legal lapdog, Alberto Gonzales postulated:

(link) "Our response to that is, is that we have to look at the authorization to use military force, which was passed in the days following the attacks of 9/11, and we believe that the Congress intended for the president to engage in all of those activities that are fundamentally incidental to waging war, including electronic surveillance, and therefore we don't get to the question as to whether or not FISA is constitutional or unconstitutional."

So what changed, sir?

The answer is, of course, absolute control. Absolute control is what changed. No longer is this country's democracy strangled by one-party rule, where oversight is… well… an oversight.

It is my hope that this recent about-face in policy by the White House is the result of the resurrection of oversight in Washington. And that this spying program, along with a host of the other legally reprehensible programs put into motion while this country was in its monarchy, are coming to a quick and painful death.

All hail Democracy!

Posted by john trevisani at January 18, 2007 8:14 AM
Comments
Comment #203815

I’d be careful about celebrating- George might have gotten a blanket warrant (which is unconstitutional by my understanding, since warrants must specify what is to be searched and where, and show probable cause.)

But, the fact that he has to fall back to a position of less absolute power is indeed good news.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 18, 2007 9:08 AM
Comment #203820

Now that congress has the power to investigate his activities again, we are going to see him backpedal on a lot of issues like this. Personally, I think he does it to preempt the investigation, because he’s afraid of what it’s going to dig up.

Posted by: Max at January 18, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment #203821


Here is what Representive Heather Wilson, Republican, New Mexico had to say about the president’s new approach. Administration officials ” have convinced a single judge in a secret session. in a nonadversarial session, to issue a court order to cover the president’s terrorism surveillance program.” In other words, one warrant covers everyone in all situations and the president has no further need to go back to the FISA court. It seems to me that the president has strenghend his position rather than weakened it.

Posted by: jlw at January 18, 2007 10:34 AM
Comment #203827

jlw:
You make a valid point about not knowing the complete details of this policy about-face. i believe the facts that are known are that Gonzales wrote:

(the surveillance program)will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The letter, or rather this excerpt, says that the FISA court is overseeing this program, not an individual judge.

And according to the Washington Post today:

The FISA court will approve wiretap requests for 90 days at a time, the DoJ official said. The court will have authority to review individual wiretap requests, but the DoJ official declined to provide specific information about how the FISA program will work.

Hopefully more details will emerge.

Posted by: john trevisani at January 18, 2007 11:16 AM
Comment #203847

So you guys should be happy. The system is working as advertised and as you said it should.

Posted by: Jack at January 18, 2007 1:42 PM
Comment #203853

jack, john

The price of liberty is eternal vigilence.

Just because it seems that Bush has rolled over on this one, we’d be pretty foolish to think he wasn’t planning on cheating, doing end arounds, and pretty much whatever he feels like doing. Especially since he has already stated that this program is his right as dictator, I mean decider, aka President.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 18, 2007 2:06 PM
Comment #203863

Dave

I do not agree that the original thing was a problem, BUT if you do I can accept that. What we both agree on is eternal vigilence is the price of liberty. The checks and balance inherent in our system produced the result you wanted and it looks like a result I also find acceptable. It is a good thing.

In our republic, we depend on pitting ambition against ambition - checks and balances. We do not rely on the virtue of our leaders. Every republic that depended on virtue became a tyranny.

I am convinced that president Bush was doing what he thought best for the security of the U.S. I agreed with him. Others disagreed. We got a resolution. I am ready to move on & consider it decided.

Posted by: Jack at January 18, 2007 3:41 PM
Comment #203869

Jack, many of us are not! This absence of law enforcement for politicians while the rest of us live under its full weight, MUST be addressed. I can think of no better way, than indicting Bush and Cheney, in 2009 for high crimes and misdemeanors, and if found guilty of deliberately violating their oath of office and subverting the Constitution of the U.S., sent to prison.

It is high time we citizens reinstated justice for all, in this country!

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 18, 2007 4:24 PM
Comment #203879

David

When I started reading your blogs I just thought your ideas were stupid, moronic a plain dribble. Thank you for your last post, you just proved it.

wkw

Posted by: keith at January 18, 2007 6:05 PM
Comment #203891

I’m still waiting for Do-Nothing Congress to really start solving some of the nation’s most pressing problems.
I’m glad the spying is now under the watchful eye of the FISA court (as it should be). No one should ever under-estimate the propensity of government to abuse such things.

David Remer,
It’s very unlikely Bush and Cheney will ever be indicted for crimes, but you know that.
Someone should be held accountable for starting a war based largely on the threat of WMD that turned out to not exist. That’s not a minor oversight. It’s not hard to see how some could call it a war crime. Unfortunately, many will overlook that, the constitutional issues, and find a way to justify all of it, as usual.

At any rate, when will this supposedly new and wonderful 110th Congress pass some real reforms?

Posted by: d.a.n at January 18, 2007 7:59 PM
Comment #203893

Jack,

If this were a single event, I would agree with you that the left was posturing more than concerned. I would also be enjoying it as a revenge for the stupidity of Monicagate.
I also agree, at the most superficial level, that W acted in ways he thought best for the nation. However, I also think the evidence is overwhelming that his final decisions are based more on political viability than anything else.

Finally, I think David is correct. This administration and the GOPer run congress has been an exersize in abuse of power. I think impeachement is mandatory and there must be a trial to determine and establish conclusively if the actions taken over the last 6 years were criminal.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 18, 2007 8:21 PM
Comment #203916

Dave & David

I do not think Bush does ANYTHING for strictly political reasons. Isn’t that the criticism. He clearly doesn’t care that people do not like him.

There will never be an impeachment. If there was, Bush would not be convicted. It would be more disappointing to you all than fitzmas.

Posted by: Jack at January 18, 2007 11:02 PM
Comment #203933

Jack, that’s what was said about Nixon. But, Ford knew better. Thus the deal was struck, Nixon resigns, and Ford pardons.

The way Republicans in the Congress are running as far away from Bush as they can for their political lives, conviction is not out of the realm of possibility, at all. And if the media does their job, the majority of Americans may stand behind it as a way of putting the past behind and looking forward to a better future.

Impeaching a President is the single most powerful thing the American people could do to restore democracy of, by, and for the people. As well as fidelity to the people by most politicians for decades to come.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 19, 2007 4:31 AM
Comment #203936

David,
I would agree with you, if we lived in a world of law and order. We are not a nation in isolation. Impeachment, as much as I feel Bush IS criminal in his negligence of duty, and fealty to his political backers, wold paralyze our government. Bush has weakened American position enough, we don’t need to erode it further. His hands are largley tied at this point. While he could expand this war, that is not entirely in his hands alone.

The world is filled with despots, collapse of our government would not be helpful, especially with an incompetent administration at the reins.

Posted by: gergle at January 19, 2007 4:55 AM
Comment #203939

gergle, why do you think impeachment would paralyze us? Why and how would it cause a collapse of government? The Constitution provides an orderly procession to continue government in such circumstances.

The JFK assassination did not cripple the nation. It slowed sales for a week as people remained glued to their TV’s, but, other than that, it went without a hitch.

I don’t see it. But, I can’t read your mind, so, you will have to explain to me how it would happen that we would be paralyzed or crippled as a result.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 19, 2007 5:10 AM
Comment #203953

The reason democrats FOLDED on this issue and adjusted the way the courts work to ACCOMODATE Bush is because the bulk of the American people were ALWAYS FOR listening on al Qaeda and using every means possible to do that. So in the end, the system was adjusted to accomodate fighting this war the way Bush said we needed to and then, after giving Bush what he wants, democrats declared VICTORY OVER BUSH.

Yawn. Another big FAKE victory of the the left over Bush.

Meanwhile Nancy and Harry continue to run up deficts, refuse to blance the budgets, refuse to fix social security, refuse to fix medicare, refuse to seal our boarders against illegals, refuse to eliminate earmarks, and perpetuate corruption in government.

Hey Harry, I’ll make a property deal with you if you do something for me….ehhhh? The democratic party culture of corruption is now in power.

All we need now is Hillary in the Whitehouse selling pardons, stealing furniture, firing and lying, and trying to defeat capitalism with her giant socialist agenda. Oh, and kissing French behind with the other surrender monkeys.

Posted by: Stephen at January 19, 2007 9:49 AM
Comment #203956

Stephen:

Meanwhile Nancy and Harry continue to run up deficts, refuse to blance the budgets, refuse to fix social security, refuse to fix medicare, refuse to seal our boarders against illegals, refuse to eliminate earmarks, and perpetuate corruption in government.

It’s definitely off of this thread and topic, but this statement had me do a double-take.

Have you been in a coma for the past 6 years? Do you know who’s been running up the debt? Do you remember who actually BALANCED the budget? Scheesch…

Posted by: john trevisani at January 19, 2007 9:56 AM
Comment #203957

John,

Sorry old pal, but while the democrats continue to fail you can’t cover them for two years by blaming Republicans. Power was taken FROM the republicans and handed TO the democrats because
the democrats promised they would fix these issues. Are you saying that the democratic party plan is to fail for two years and spend their time blaming their failure on the past failures of others?

And what did the democrats do about government corruption? They promised an end to it. They put good old Harry Reid in power who did that dirty property deal for over a million bucks in Vegas and apparently has other property deals, has personal family members being paid to lobby him, and took that Abramoff money. If he were a Republican the democrats would have launched a national campaign by now to “get rid of the corrupt old politician”.

Then the Democrats address EarMarks: “Hello Ear Marks, we love you”. Thank you very much for “addressing” ear marks. How about Eliminating them? Oh now, that’s where so much corruption money comes from…we can’t get rid of them! How will we shower tax payer dollars on local democratic voters? Why stopping Ear-marks might damage corrupt democratic party leaderships relationships with the lobbiests! So much for eliminating corruption in government! Same old same old.

Fiscal responsibility? Well, first Nancy announces we will continue deficit spending at last years clip. And you folks here HAILED that as a MAJOR VICTORY, a WISE move. then with deficit spending underway and readdressed, Nancy passes “pay as you go”! Oh what a victory, shout it to the gullible. Then Nancy passes tens of billions in spending with no mention of how she will “pay as you go”. So deficit spending continues virtually unabated and the democrats tells they have now “solved” the problem. Hey, can Harry or Nancy even say the word “balanced budgets”? Have they even promised to some day in the distant distant future to even give us a blananced budget? Didn’t they tell us to “think of the little children”? Oh the horror, democratic party running up deficits and not “thinking of the little children”.

And remember the end to hate, division and how bipartisanship was to begin on the “very first hour”? Oh well, Nancy decided that wasn’t really a good idea..PROMISE REVOKED!

So how are the democrats doing? Not so well so far.

I want:
Balanced Budgets,
A real fix for social security,
a real fix for Medicare,
Boarders closed to illegals with a fence,
a real war against terrorists,

and I want a national health care program built on the foundation of a balanced budget with sealed boarders and fixes for the other broken social programs.

So far, all I’m seeing are weak “feel good” bills that solve none of our nations major problems and they are wrapped in lots of propaganda about how the far left has “fixed” everything in the first 100 hours. Have they fixed ANY of the major issues in the first 100 hours?

How many hours do they need to fix even one MAJOR issue? At what point have they promised they would fix one of the major issues and when can I expect to see that happen?

Posted by: Stephen at January 19, 2007 10:15 AM
Comment #203959

John,
Newt Gingrich and I clearly remember what party ran on giving balanced budgets and what party made that dream come true after the democrats got run out of office and Newt led the way.

Your memory seems to be a bit foggy on that though. Perhaps a trip to a local library would help you?

Where is todays democratic party newt G? Which Democrats has promised to make Balanced budgets a part of their agenda? What is the plan? when will America see the democratic partys balanced budget plan? They didn’t even mention the word in the first 100 hours…but they did spend a lot of money in the first 100 hours.

BRING BACK NEWT….Pelosi and Reid are not going to hand America a balanced budget,ever.

Posted by: Stephen at January 19, 2007 10:21 AM
Comment #203972

What Republicans are running as far as possible away from Bush for their political lives?

The libs are accusing John McCain, one of Bush’s most staunch adversaries of loving up to Bush as if they were courting in one of the last posts on the lib side.

You can’t have it both ways guys. Either all the Republicans are a bunch of crooks,(culture of corruption), and violators of the Constitution, or Bush is acting all alone, on his own. Which is it?

JD

Posted by: JD at January 19, 2007 11:39 AM
Comment #203980

Too many politicians of BOTH parties are half the problem. They are FOR-SALE, and too preoccupied with gettin’ theirs, self-gain, and securing their own cu$hy, coveted seats of abused power, while duping slumbering voters into repeatedly re-electing them by fueling the extremely effective, distracting, divisive partisan warfare that divides voters, pits voters against each other, so that a majority can never exist to vote them out.

The other half is too many voters that keep rewarding irresponsible politicians by repeatedly re-electing them, because they are too easily lured-into and too fond of wallowing in the powerfully seductive, circular, distracting, divisive partisan warfare, because it is easier to let “THE PARTY” do their thinking for them.

In the meantime, the nation’s truly important problems are still not being adequately addressed.

  • (01) War in Iraq

  • (02) Government Waste and Corruption

  • (03) Campaign Finance Reform

  • (04) Election Reform

  • (05) Energy Vulnerability

  • (06) $8.6 trillion National Debt, excessive money-printing

  • (07) Nation-Wide Debt

  • (08) Social Security

  • (09) Medicare

  • (10) Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

  • (11) The Federal Reserve (excessive money-printing)

  • (12) Dysfunctional and Corrupt Legal System

  • (13) Public Education

  • (14) Illegal Immigration

  • (15) Healthcare

  • (16) Tax Reform

  • (17) Property Taxes

  • (18) Eminent Domain Abuse

Democrats had power about 70 years before the Republicans had their short 12 year turn at being the “IN PARTY”. I hope I’m wrong, but the past 30+ years don’t warrant much optimism. The Republicans in Congress and the executive branch did an absolutely terrible job and ran up huge deficits. But Democrats went along with most of it. The two party duopoly is merely about taking turns being irresponsible. The voters rewarded 90% of incumbents with re-election, so the same bunch, for the most part, is still there (including Rep. Jefferson Williams).

True, Congress is now fixing a few things, but they are not the most important problems facting the nation. It’s good to enforce the FISA oversight. The minimum wage increase is OK (except for Nancy Pelosi sneakily trying to omit Samoa since she represents StarKist). Some of the 9/11 recommendations are OK. But that’s not nearly enough. A few cleverly cherry-picked things isn’t good enough.

Already, Congress is considering ethics reforms. Their solution? Hire more people for the Ethics Panels. Great! Wouldn’t you know it. How typical. The solution seems to always be to grow the already over-bloated government ever larger. So, who will watch the watchers? It’s a farce, and so is the “first 100 hour clock”.

Let’s see some real reforms finally be passed and enforced.

How about stopping illegal immigration?
How about border and port security?
How about stop plundering Social Security?
How about stopping the massive waste?
How about stopping the excessive money-printing?
How about stopping the massive borrowing and growing debt ?
How about stopping the massive growth of government itself, growing and growing to nightmare proportions?
How about fixing Medicare (it’s a huge mess).
How about ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL ?
How about these more pressing problems, growing in number and severity?
How about simply addressing some of the most badly-needed, agreed-upon, common-sense, no-brainer, responsible reforms?
Stop Gerrymandering?
Stop eminent domain abuse?
Stop government FOR-SALE?
Stop corporate welfare, corpocrisy, and corporatism ?
Stop the waste and pork-barrel; especially while our troops risk life and limb, and go with out adequate body amror and healthcare?
Our troops deserve much better.

So it’s only the first month, but we’re running out of time, and there’s no room for any more patience. We’d better start fixing these things, or they’ll resolve themselves the hard way.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 19, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #203986
He clearly doesn’t care that people do not like him…Posted by: Jack at January 18, 2007 11:02 PM
Agreed, he doesn’t give a damn about what the rest of us think of him. He only cared if enough will VOTE for him. It’s funny how he’s managed to spin his unpopularity into “I do what’s right no matter what people think”
Impeachment…wo(u)ld paralyze our government….Posted by: gergle at January 19, 2007 04:55 AM
I think we need to do what’s right and if he won’t resign, then impeachment is what’s right. Despite the cost I believe the benefit to our future as a law based nation is greater.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 19, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #203987

Stephen:
Geez… i must have gotten it ALL wrong. The Democrats were in control over the past 6 years. Thanks for pointing that out to me. i must have missed that somewhere.

Tell Newt, the next time that you see him (you appear to be best buds) that even his ‘contract with America’ crowd voted for the largest spending increases in the past 6 years.

Do you remember if you gave Newt and Co. the same scrutiny during their first 100 hours? i think not. Pelosi and crew have succeeded in raising the issues that they promised they would. Even you agreed to that fact; you just called them ‘feel good’.

Personally i’m with d.a.n., they’re all corrupt and all should go. i am a big fan of a loud representative government. And i love it when our government operates like a loud, cranky old engine, sputtering and kicking the entire way down the road. When you have a Democrat in the Executive branch and the Republicans in the Senate; it’s ugly. But if you want to get something done, you HAVE to work it out. But when you have a Republican controlled government, like you’ve had during this horrific time period, it CREATES graft and greed and corruption. One party rule is wrong and everyone knows it.

But tell me:
Who grew the government to its largest levels since Johnson?
Who squandered a surplus and created a deficit?
Who… oh… it doesn’t matter…

It was Clinton’s fault…. right?

Posted by: john trevisani at January 19, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment #204013

Rightwing Stephen,
The Republicans lost. So, no one is concerned now with how great Newt was, or in a long stream of complaints tossed out by GOP’ers who never said a word when the “Contract with America” turned into a Con-job on America.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 19, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #204017

Dave:
“I think we need to do what’s right and if he won’t resign, then impeachment is what’s right.”

Agree 100%.

“Despite the cost I believe the benefit to our future as a law based nation is greater.”

I actually think the cost to the nation may be higher if we DON”T impeach Bushco for all the high crimes and misdemeanors they’ve committed. Nixon resigned in disgrace, but got a full pardon. Reagan got away completely. Clinton was impeached in the House, and stayed, but in disgrace. Now Bush should also get away with everything like Reagan did? No, we need to set a precedent here, because crimes this grave and numerous definitely call for impeachment.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 19, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #204022

The problem with trying to impeach Bush is that he can blame others for everything (Tenet, etc.).

If Bush and Republicans stand in the way of badly-needed reforms and solutions for this nation’s most pressing problems, then Democrats should go for an impeachment of Bush (and indictments of others in the executive branch) for starting an unnecessary war based on flawed intelligence (i.e. no WMD … not a minor oversight that led to massive death and destruction). After all, some nations, understandably, would call the preemptive attack on Iraq a war crime and clear-cut aggression, since the flawed and/or trumped up reason (WMD) turned out to be false.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 19, 2007 4:49 PM
Comment #204024

Now there’s some leverage, eh?

Posted by: d.a.n at January 19, 2007 4:51 PM
Comment #204069

d.a.n.

Being stupid and getting bad advice is not usually criminal. I think the actual constitutional violations of breaking nearly every seperation of power is where the impeachable offences lie.

Adrienne,

Agreed on all counts… the benefits of impeachemnt are higher than the costs. I never thought of the (R) get’s away with being criminal and the (D) gets caught with the zipper down before….

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 19, 2007 8:43 PM
Comment #204072

Dave1-20-2009,

You may be right.
However, which one has the most backing?

Personally, I dislike Bush very much (and am ashamed to say I voted for that [explicative] person in 2004), but I’m not sure I’d play the impeachment/war-crimes card until Repubs make it necessary. Leverage. It’s a good thing.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 19, 2007 9:01 PM
Comment #204102

d.a.n.

I’m a bit surprised that a staunch supporter of VOID would be willing to accept the continued “service” of a removable corrupt politician :-)
In any case, I think DickBush’s replacements would bow to the will of the people, whatever legislative agenda develops. DickBush has nothing to lose at this time with their political capital in the red.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 19, 2007 11:42 PM
Comment #204158
Dave1-20-2009 wrote: I’m a bit surprised that a staunch supporter of VOID would be willing to accept the continued “service” of a removable corrupt politician :-)

Dave1-20-2009,
I do NOT accept “continued service” at all, and questioning the probability of Dems successfully impeaching Bush does NOT equate to “accepting the continued service”.

As I said above, Bush very much deserves impeachment for starting an unnecessary war in Iraq that was based (mostly) on WMD that didn’t exist, and then turned it into a quagmire with a vast number of blunders, one after another, after another. It was either irresponsible incompetence, or intentional, or both. Take your pick. Both are bad. That is reason enough. But will Congress do it? Remember, many Democrats went along with the invasion of Iraq.

I’m just skeptical that it is possible.

The evidence against Nixon was much better (which I believe included some of his own audio tapes), because Nixon couldn’t blame anyone else. He tried to make others take the fall, but no one would go a long.

Bush blamed Tenet (essentially for appearances) anyway, and fired Tenet. So the scapegoat has already been picked.

Now, if there really is a solid case of blatant law breaking by Bush, by all means, persue it, and an impeachment. However, we know it’s not that strong of a case.

So, where is the lone, blatant law breaking? Remember, Bush has many accomplices, lawyers, and congress persons that supported his actions, and there lies the crux of the problem. There are a long, long list of others involved, and nothing that Bush did all by his lonesome that can easily be used to impeach him. Sure, we know Bush deserves impeachment (for Iraq alone; which is unlikely a mere matter of bad intelligence), but it’s not likely due to the lack of clear and blatant action that is unquestionably illegal.

Much of Bush’s constitutional violations look debatable enough to raise questions to the solidity of a case for impeachment too. However, perhaps Dems should persue it, regardless of potential success, if Bush and/or Republicans stand in the way of badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms. Already, Republicans are partly responsible for the watered down (toothless) ethics reforms.

So, again, pointing out the difficulties of impeaching Bush, in no way equates to “accepting the continued service” of Bush. Besides, my statement (above/below) is theorizing that Dems play the “impeachment/war-crimes card” if necessary, which is anything but “accepting the continued service” of Bush, eh?

Posted by: d.a.n at January 20, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #204194

d.a.n.


Perhaps I misunderstood ‘I’m not sure I’d play the impeachment/war-crimes card until Repubs make it necessary’. Anyway, Bush claims legal privelege. Wouldn’t a trial (i.e. impeachment) be used typically to determine legality? There’s no guarantee for a conviction but I believe that the trial itself is worth far more than any costs.

Some arguments I’ve considered against impeachement are
(a)We are in a war -even though Bush atarted it- but he’s leading us down a hole, so I say ‘gone’
(b) Impeachement for illegal activities that were historically tolerated since they were necessary - but the powers were abused by Bush, we can let the next guy break the law and decide then (independent cases)
(c) It distracts from the Dem agenda which is mostly undo the Bush damage - yes, but impeachmen benefits outweighs this, but maybe just wait a few months.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 20, 2007 7:01 PM
Comment #204206

Dave1-20-2009,

Bush should be impeached for starting a war based on intelligence that turned out to be inaccurate.
That is no minor oversight.

I’m not sure Dems can pursue it since they went along with it. Repubs won’t go along with it.

I’m merely commenting on the probability of success.

Now, as you say, who cares if it succeeds or not?

I agree, if Dems are driven to it by obstructionism by the Repubs.

In that case, go for it.
That’s what I meant by “leverage”.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 20, 2007 7:38 PM
Comment #204211

David, I think an impeachment would be as devisive as it was during Watergate and Monicagate.

I didn’t say it would collapse our government, just cause focus to be almost exclusively on the impeachment.

While Clinton did manage to proceed with dealing with Serbia, I don’t think the political peril to Clinton was nearly as serious as Nixon or that the Impeachment of Bush would entail.

Perhaps I am wrong on this. I am hoping that Bush isn’t looking for a reason to entangle us with Iran. I am hopeful he has been contained. I tend to think that he has damaged the Republican Neocon juggernaut enough that we can ride out his last two years without making more completely stupid decisions. I do think we need to focus on Al Qaeda and middleast problems, and energy and healthcare problems, and I’m hopeful we can do that without making Cheney president or giving fuel to the Neocon Nuts.

Posted by: gergle at January 20, 2007 8:29 PM
Comment #204229

oops, actually I guess I did use the word collapse, but I did not mean that.

Posted by: gergle at January 20, 2007 10:38 PM
Post a comment