Warning:long and virtually guaranteed to anger

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12003304/
You should really read the entire article if you are going to read this particular post. Then the context of these comments will make much more sense. With that said...

Window cleaner Ira Clemons put down his squeegee in the lobby of a city mall and stroked his goatee as he considered the question: Would you support your congressman's call to impeach Bush? His smile grew until it looked like a three-quarters moon."Why not? The man's been lying from Jump Street on the war in Iraq," Clemons said. "Bush says there were weapons of mass destruction, but there wasn't. Says we had enough soldiers, but we didn't. Says it's not a civil war -- but it is."

Let's start with the rather obvious. If the previous statements did not make it clear, this one should. You are reading an opinion piece, not a news story. Subtle nuances in the writing make this clear...such as bringing in positive emotions when negatives are written about Bush. The smile of Clemons, the referencing town meetings where they choose to do normal business...things designed to "warm" the heart of the reader right before blasts against Bush.
I have often said the news has not, for a long time, been intended to be fair and equal. I also have said I have no problem with that. Every person on earth has an agenda of what is important to them. Frankly, people who do not try to influence the world to be a little bit better in whatever work they do are the ones I have a problem with. So why did I point these prejudices out?
Simple. It is important, per the post yesterday, to have the ability to analyze the news if you are truly going to be educated by it. And part of analyzing the news is knowing what the writer has for an agenda. In this case it is presenting a positive case for impeachment.
How about what Clemons said? Many people take it as an article of faith that what he said is 100% accurate and there is no doubt in their mind. And that is one reason international trials have had so much difficulty. For instance, everyone on earth knows Saddam Hussein is guilty of numerous murderes, attempted genocide, torture of his people, gassing them, etc. Yet look at the difficulty prosecutors are having in the trial. If you have been following it, they are having a difficult time indeed putting together a convinceing case against Hussein himself. His subordinates? No problem. But he himself is insulated. Now, don't think I believe he will get off. No, this is too important, this is a trial with a predetermined outcome...he will be found guilty regardless of evidence. And I believe he probably is. But it has been difficult to actually demonstrate it.
The Bush situation is no different. Remember, several nations saw the same intelligence reports as the U.S. and made the same decisions...based on partially their own networks, not just the U.S.'s. The WMD claim...well, again, Clinton, Kerry, and hundreds of others said there were WMD from about 1995 on so you are going to be hard pressed to carry that charge to a successful conclusion, realistically speaking. He said there were enough soldiers? That was an interesting one to me...I have not seen that side of the debate. However, no war in history has had accurate forecastings of troop requirements. Or time required. Never forget, World War I had time tables showing it would be over in weeks. And it was probably the BEST planned war in history. People spent YEARS planning it. Misjudgments (or, it could be argued, inattention or even outright stupidity) are, while tragic, hardly criminal. Civil war...maybe. One man's civil war is another man's insurgency or unrest. You will have a hard time proving a definition that is itself unclear. Do I think it is a civil war? Irrelevant whether I do or not...for purposes of impeachment, it is not a legitimate charge because of simple dictionary thoughts.

"Prominent party leaders -- and a large majority of those in Congress -- distance themselves from the effort. They say the very word is a distraction, that talk of impeachment and censure reflect the polarization of politics. Activists spend too many hours dialing Democratic politicians and angrily demanding impeachment votes, they say."
Ah, politics, how we love thee. See anything missing here? How about...what is RIGHT? If what he did is, indeed, impeachable, then they have not just the right but the responsibility to do everything in their power to bring it about. On the other hand, if nothing impeachable was performed then they need to not just say it is a distraction but speak out against it. The polarization is because people are more interested in votes than in doing the right thing.


"Impeachment is an outlet for anger and frustration, which I share, but politics ain't therapy," said Rep. Barney Frank...

It is official. A formerly warm location is covered in a sheet of ice. How do I know? Not only does Billy have more children alone than all my other long-time friends put together, Barney Frank said one of the most intelligent things I have seen in a long time. Nicely done. Now, work to fix the things that anger and frustrate you.

With midterm elections in the offing, Republican leaders view impeachment as kerosene poured on the bonfires of their party base.
"The Democrats' plan for 2006?" Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman wrote in a fundraising e-mail Thursday. "Take the House and Senate and impeach the president. With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want?"

Now here is an interesting bit. Where to start. Okay, we will start with the last sentence first. If impeachment is merited, then yes, absolutely that is what the people should want. A Congress that looks out for truth and justice and is willing to endure hard timesa to get it is what this nation sought for years until politics and the party system obliterated the idea of putting up for election a few good men. With the rise of the parties came the end of good men in office for the most part. And that is even more obvious in Congress, a bloated, self-important, misguided and unjust organization filled with thieves, adulterers, philanderers, killers and criminals. Don't believe me? Check out the statistics on their crimes.
Second, if you ever see the mockumentary...err, "documentary" Bush's Brain then you will come to the inescapable conclusion that Karl Rove is behind the impeachment talk. When I read this paragraph I thought I was channeling the writers for that flick, whcih I strongly recommend against people seeing it. If you think Moore is manipulative and tends to make unsubstantiated points of questionable integrity then this film will show you what an amateur he is. By the end you realize that even though each referenced incident was investigated by the nation's top investigators and no, I repeat NO proof, even the smallest shred, was ever brought to light, yet it convicts Rove of numerous activities that border on (and, if he did them, were) criminality. But the way the above paragraph channels it is the habit the movie claims for Rove of actually making it look like his opponents are raising issues such as this in order to bring out his own candidate's power base.
In other words, on an emotional, anger-driven issue such as impeachment, the movie argues Rove believes it is in his interest to have that brought to light and talked about a lot because it will bring out more of his voters than the opponent's. Certainly an interesting argument.

And a senior British intelligence official wrote in what is now known as the "Downing Street memo" that Bush officials were intent on fixing "the intelligence and the facts . . . around the policy."

Here we have one of the most powerful pieces of evidence in existence...the infamous memo. Do not mistake it's power...much like the Husayn-McMahon correspondence that led in no small way to the Israeli-Palestinian question we have today, a small, select number of people can write things that, while opinion, are sources of great problems.
And therein lies the problem....just as McMahon made errors in interpretation, it can easily be said of the Downing Street memo the things expressed within are simply opinion. And here is where intellectual honesty is problematic...for Bush supporters it will universally be declared one man's erroneous opinion and for Bush detractors it will universally be declared one man's accurate assesment. I have serious doubts either side will ever accept the other side's reading of that memo.
Furthermore, that is hardly a new claim. Think back...and remember even popular FDR was accused of making sure Pearl Harbor A) happened and B) the military made sure it was a "surprise". The Spanish-American war? It is an oft told tale that William Randolph Hearst told Remington, "You provide the pictures and I will provide the war." The Mexican American War? Well, how about where troops were posted as a provacation? The War of 1812...a lot of scholars claim (I do not agree with them, I should admit) that the impressment of seamen was an excuse and the real aim was to seize Canada. Even the Revolution...remember, the tax that led to the Boston Tea Party would have actually LOWERED the price of tea. In other words, the U.S., and we are not alone in this, has a long and consistent history of the leadership being accused of manufacturing the reasons for war.
Does that mean I think it is right? Smurf no! But it is also not new and I fail to see it as a legitimate reason for impeachment.

Critics point to Bush's approval of harsh interrogations of prisoners captured Iraq and Afghanistan, tactics that human rights groups such as Amnesty International say amount to torture.

I did not, do not, and will not condone torture. With that said, I have actually been quite pleased at how the U.S. has handled it. Why? Because we are prosecuting our people who violate the law! How has that been overlooked? How many of our guys have been prosecuted already? That is how it is supposed to be. When we cross the line, there are consequences. But again, it is a point that is never brought out because too many people, on both sides, are not willing to have an honest debate. Instead, either everything Bush does is right regardless of reality or everything he does is wrong regardless of reality. Sad. Neither stand is true.

"The Clinton impeachment was plainly unconstitutional, and a Bush impeachment would be nearly as bad," said Cass R. Sunstein, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. "There is a very good argument that the president had it wrong on WMD in Iraq but that he was acting in complete good faith."

I would love to hear his argument for why Clinton's impeachment was unconstitutional. Remove subject matter and look at the most basic facts. Was Clinton accused of a felony (lying under oath, which is perjury)? Is a felony a "high crime"? Then what is unConstitutional about it? That one to this day irritates me and I freely admit it is one of the reasons I will never regard Clinton as anything but one of the 10 worst Presidents ever. If you or I were to perjure ourselves we would be rotting in prison. In his case it made him a hero? I spit on that argument. Screw party politics. Lest you think I am not equal opportunity, I still find it despicable that Nixon was pardoned of a crime HE WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH. Those two things are among the most grievous injustices this country has ever seen simply because they show that we are not even trying to be a country of equality anymore. Power = innocence or at least freedom from penalty. And that cuts right at the foundation of our country and is also why if Bush actually did do something impeachable I would work my butt off to see him impeached.


"He picks and chooses his information and can't admit it's erroneous, and he annoys me," said Colleen Kucinski, walking Aleks, 5, and Gregory, 2, home.
Would she support impeachment? Kucinski wags her head "yes" before the question is finished. "Without a doubt. This is far more serious than Clinton and Monica. This is about life and death. We're fighting a war on his say-so and it was all wrong."

And this is sad indeed. "He annoys me" and being wrong about intelligence, even manipulated intelligence, are not very strong reasons for impeachment. Yet look at the emotional impact of these closing paragraphs. Because they sum up what the Bush mood of this country is all about...lots of "Bush has done so much wrong and I hate him so much we have to get rid of him" when a real look at the situation reveals that, like it or not, geting rid of him simply has no basis in an honest assessment. Disliking him and his policies is very reasonable...it will be a cold, cold day in Flagstaff Arizona before I get behind what I consider one of the gravest abuses of civil rights since the internment camps of Wolrd War II in the Patriot Act, for example...and I can assure you Congressmen on either side of the aisle (not that I vote for any of them anyway...I vote for people with integrity who stand on truth, not party lines) who voted for it will not be receiving my vote, but demanding impeachment because you hate him is just too emotional and will lead to the next Pres, who will almost certainly be a Democrat, being drummed out of office on something as spurious.
Note, I am not defending Bush's actions and decisions...but neither am I supporting those who I believe are taking things too far. But that is a decision every one of you needs to make for yourself.