Skip to main content

View Diary: Overlooking Oversight (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You prefer nuclear war with Iran? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, victoria2dc

    Bush wrecks everything he touches. Compassion for others, Americans, Iraqis, and the rest of the world, calls for Bush's impeachment.

    Inconvenient News Doing my part to afflict the comfortable.

    by smintheus on Sun May 07, 2006 at 07:01:45 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tarheel Dem, eaglecries

      M/M smintheus,

      I am missing the point of your comment.

      The compassion to which I was referring, is towards  Americans who feel as if they are out in the political cold, having been abandoned/deceived by their party and wanting to be someplace else - possibly with the Democrats, rather than staying home and not voting.

      It is quite a leap to assume that everyone wants Bush impeached, which is in essence what you are saying; and that anyone who does not demand his immediate impeachment needs to heed the call of the rest of the world.

      As regards my prefering a nuclear war with Iran, that is somewhat of a hyperbolic statement -

      I guess you might be saying that if Bush is not impeached now we will have a nuclear war with Iran -and since I am not advocating immediate impeachment (in a Republican controlled Congress)I am prefering a nuclear war as the only other option.

      If you accept the fact that there is either

      a) a continuing Republican Majority Congress next session- in which case we will have little to say over war with Iran - (as you posit it)

      or

      b) there is a Democratic Majority in Congress the next session, and in which case Bush's authority will be curtailed.

      How that comports with my prefering a nuclear war with Iran is unclear to me.

      •  Bush's authority will be curtailed? (0+ / 0-)

        by a Democratic Congress? I must be missing something. We are talking about Mr. Unitary Executive Bush? Why would he back away from his confrontation with Iran, just because Congress is in other hands?

        My point is that Bush is out of control. He's a danger to America and the rest of the world. He's also committed what are clearly impeachable offenses. So why leave him in power and risk, inter alia, a nuclear attack on Iran? Why not have some compassion that is larger than political triangulation? In other words, why not show leadership and remove him from the office he's defiled?

        Obviously nothing will happen if the GOP retains control. The question is whether the Dems should defend the Constitution against this law breaker, if they are given the opportunity to do so.

        Inconvenient News Doing my part to afflict the comfortable.

        by smintheus on Sun May 07, 2006 at 09:28:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Leadership and the role of Congress (0+ / 0-)
          M/M smitheus

          The issues you now raise are somewhat different from what you had previously stated. But in any event, let me try to put a through-line in here.

          As someone hoping to get to Congress to do some good for our ailing country, I believe that leadership, at this point in time, demands just that - doing some good for the country. I do not like George Bush. But I more dislike the people who are running him. And I am far from naive to believe that eliminating him would result in a turnover of the evil forces lurking behind the halls of power in this nation. My job would be to guide and return this nation to constitutionally responsible governance. I would not shy away from impeachment, but it is a prospect to be reserved as a last choice. When it was apparent that President Nixon was going to be impeached, the Congress sent Senator Barry Goldwater to speak with him. When Nixon understood that the entire Congress was against him, he resigned the next day. The sad fact is that we still have Nixon's legacy, because those people who supported his adventures are still with us today, and more so.

          That having been said, the issue you raise by assuming that George Bush would declare himself absolute leader by confronting the US Congress in its demands, raises two very different questions.

          The simple question would be that the Democratic Congress, and that is the assumption we are working on here, will be ineffective, and that the Conservative Republicans, who are already un-enamored of Mr. Bush, would stand in the sidelines and let the country fall into a dictatorship. I cannot read the future, but I would prefer to assume that men like Russ Feingold will finally have support in both chambers and that a Democratic led Congress will have strength.

          The second question is one of a Constitutional crisis. The picture you are painting is one in which the President of the United States calls out the Army to arrest the Congress. That is about the only way a takeover would happen if there is a strong Congress of Democrats and Conservative Republicans.

          If the Congress is adamant in their pursuits but thwarted by the President, at that point - I assume that impeachment would be on everybody's mind.

          But that having been said, how would impeachment be any more realizable than a strong Congress unable to block the President using their other inherent powers?

          There is a time and place for everything.  One must remain focused on the goal and not the distractions created by one’s opponents. I fear no fight, but understanding the cost of battle would prefer other solutions.

          If you find this pandering to weakness, I cannot do much more to clarify my position, nor bring you around to a less hostile point of view.

          I love this country very much and as a Congressman would rather spend my energies on curing its ills than creating new wounds demanding of time and energy.

          Respectfully,

          Joel

      •  Neuter him, bind him hand and ... (0+ / 0-)

        ...foot, and hang him from the neck of the republican party.  But don't make him a martyr, make him an example of who THEY are and what THEY "believe."  Democrats ran against hoover for 40+ years because he was such a good example of that great oxymoron - republican values (the real repub value = $).  I hope dems are running against the ghost of dub-yah for the next 80 years.

        Worst Ever?  Damn straight.

        Can we overplay this hand?  Yes we can.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site