I am officially for impeachemnt... - Page 5

wallyburger · May 9th, 2007, 08:34 AM

David Brock authored the whole condemnation process of Bill Clinton. He later retracted and switched sides. Did the judgement process stop when the lies by both sides were exposed?

conraddobler · May 9th, 2007, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallyburger

David Brock authored the whole condemnation process of Bill Clinton. He later retracted and switched sides. Did the judgement process stop when the lies by both sides were exposed?

The process is broken because people put party before country on both sides.

Country first party second, with some reality mixed in.

Bottom line to me, Clinton lied, impeachment was fine, he did not deserve to be removed IMO. Bush et al lied IMO, they deserve to not only be removed but imprisioned IMO.

Each individual situation should be taken on it's own merits, however what has gone before weighs a lot on how people think tactically and strategically on this issue.

conraddobler · May 9th, 2007, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djaughe

The political calculation among those Congressional Republicans during that scandal was to leave a "wounded" Clinton to serve out his term. The thought process was that it was better than having an incumbent President Gore clean up the mess with elections around the corner.

That's pretty much the same paradigm that the Pelosi/Reid Democrats are following for 2008. The GW White House (just like the Clinton White House) grew up to see Nixon resign and see historians rewrite (good or bad) his Presidency.

Both administrations picked (and lost...or will lose further) their fights on Executive Privilege - making it harder for future Presidents to invoke it. All for the benefit to buy time to get out and get their Library built.

Which is really kinda sad about the "all or nothing" attitude that today's politicians reference the Nixon years as the only official standard.

With a little research both political parties could have looked at how Ronald Reagan waived all Executive Privilege at the start of the Iran-Contra investigation (which arguably dealt with the very matters of national security and diplomacy in which Executive Privilege is the most legitimate). Reagan turned over his documents and diaries...he told everyone (including White House lawyers) to do the same because he wanted the facts to come out. He apologized on T.V. after the investigation - cleaned out his cabinet and moved on.

Even Jimmy Carter had his lawyers and requested his supporters to cooperate in the investigation regarding his family's peanut business under a democratically controlled congress.

I don't think Bush or more appropriately Cheney could stand that kind of Reagan spotlight your talking about.

It's just an opinion but I don't think that's an option for Cheney and Rumsfeld to have that much scrutiny on what they did.

That's probably again IMO because of how they run things compared to how Reagan did. Reagan was basically a stand up guy, he had his faults but only a guy without terrible back room planning to do horrible things could get away with that kind of scrutiny.

Cheney would absolutely faint dead away if Bush gave that order.

Djaughe · May 9th, 2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conraddobler

I don't think Bush or more appropriately Cheney could stand that kind of Reagan spotlight your talking about....

Perhaps not the spotlight in 2007 and Cheneys bum ticker - but in 2003 not so unrealistic.

Even if it wasn't in terms of "impeachment" - Censuring the President back in 2003 regarding the war intelligence could have in many ways been that symbolic vote (with all the music of compromise that today's politicians seem to lack) and would have offered some type of "acceptance" regarding the actions leading up to the war and certainly a new thought process regarding rebuilding Iraq.

Even today with all the accusations flying around - there still isn't a proper basis for impeachment. However its no secret that the effectiveness of this presidency has pretty much been destroyed with all the whispers, rumors and speculating about the integrity of the White House.

Just like the Congressional Republicans half-heartedly going after Clinton in his last term - the Pelosi/Reid Democrats are not going to impeach GW with 2008 around the corner.