December 19, 2005
-
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?
I'm a little upset at the actions of George W. Bush.
I suppose he has authorized the NSA to scan all blogs and highlight words like those, so I won't be too surprised at midnight visits. After all Hitler, Stalin, and even Saddam Hussein were all "defending their country from those who were out to get them". That's how tyranny starts - with unchecked actions based on the belief that the leader's decisions and attitudes are RIGHT and not to be questioned, ignoring the rule of law.
Thirty something years ago we had a paranoid as president who did approximately the same things Bush has done, for approximately the same reasons. He was convinced that there was some kind of conspiracy which had to be thwarted by any means possible in order to preserve the nation he was sworn to protect and defend. His defense included breaking into private offices without warrants, hiring burglars to break into the Democratic National Committee offices and plant phone bugs, lie to the american people repeatedly and conspire to deliberately break the laws he was sworn to uphold. He was forced to resign and later pardoned by the next president (which action probably helped that guy - who strangely enough had never been elected to anything but Congressman representing Flint, MI - loose the next election). That president was R.M.Nixon; who almost caused the nation to self-destruct. Bush probably admires him. Incidentally, Nixon's Vice President was forced to resign (taking bribes) and that's how we ended up with the fellow from Flint.
In the case of Bush II, we have a similar situation where the President and his administration have used the 9/11 terrorist attack as an excuse to invade a country which had nothing to do with that attack, ram a law through congress that has been patently unsuccessful in discouraging terrorist activity (all of which since 9/11 has been overseas - and has increased) and is probably mostly unconstitutional. He has used that law to authorize illegal wiretaps arguing that this was necessary because "we can't wait for judges to act" even though there has, for several years, been a secret court procedure in place for post-facto judicial review which has approved thousands of prior wiretaps and surveillance episodes and has only disapproved four. When bush says, as he did last night and again this morning, that his extra-legal authorizations are necessary he deliberately lied. They aren't necessary, they are convenient. they are also illegal and unconstitutional.
What more does G. W. Bush have to do before Articles of Impeachment are drawn up?
Comments (5)
Thanks for breaking it down like that. For me, it is harder to tie together the actions of past presidents with the actions of current ones. I guess I was asleep in history class - or perhaps it was the fact that they drill facts into you, but don't bother to teach you how to think critically, how to compare the past and the present, and see how things tend to repeat.
RYC: That sounds excellent for someone your age (or even half your age~!)
george w. bush is stupid and needs to be ignored as much as possible. random props
I have another blog over on LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tychecat/ where I published this same comment.
I don't usually use the same post on both blogs, but I'm really pissed about this.
If you access LJ, you'll see that I have a number of politically active replys, including one person who is an actual member or past member, I think, of the group I'm complaining about. His comments are always to the mark and interesting and they will tell you a lot more about the politics of war today than you probably really want to know.
Wishing you a happy holiday season.
Thank you for the sensible critique. Me & my neighbor were just preparing to do some research on this. We got a grab a book from our local library but I think I learned more from this post. I’m very glad to see such wonderful information being shared freely out there.