It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad for them, it's failing.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
"And Pamela Anderson really is a virgin!"
Actual signature message, as spotted on usenet quite recently:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
When I was a Cornell undergrad at the height of the Vietnam War (or the American War, as Vietnamese call it), my sociology professor predicted that no matter whether the war was won or lost, there would be a conservative backlash in the US. His reasoning was inarguable, and he was, of course, proved correct. The US military defeat led to Reagan, Gingrich, Bush father and son, and haunts us today in so many ways--as shown by this absurdist comment.
You can bet that our inevitable defeat in Iraq will bring an even more vicious backlash of fascism. The only possible way to forestall it is to impeach George Bush for lying us into this criminal war. Otherwise the blame for losing will fall on the liberals, as it did with Vietnam. But these fools whom we just put in charge to do just that now say impeachment is off the table. They are afraid that if impeachment proceedings begin, they'll be kept too busy to raise the minimum wage or lower the interest rate on college loans.
If they go on as they are, you're going to see a real tsunami, and the ones swept away will be us, because the whole damned war will be re-defined as a heroic effort sabotaged by weak-kneed liberal Bush-haters.
Bush must be impeached, and now, for war crimes. For the Dems to waver on this, to prevaricate, is the beyond folly. It is suicidal.
I would argue that the situation is rather different. Vietnam began (in earnest) under LBJ, a Democrat who -- though corrupt -- was also a champion of civil rights and activist government. The war continued under Nixon.
Thus, when the war turned unpopular, it was not one party that suffered. The younger generation became disenchanted with the entire American establishment.
This disenchantment could not last. It is simply not in the nature of human beings to maintain that level of cynicism. People want to be proud of themselves and of their homeland.
In the deep and irrational parts of the American mind, hating what America did in Vietnam translated into hatred of America, which translated into hatred of the self. People don't like hating themselves. They just won't do it for very long.
Eventually, the citizenry reacted against that entire post-Vietnam mindset by embracing Reaganism.
Iraq is different because it is intimately associated with one party and one ideology. Discrediting the war discredits that faction -- not the very idea of America.
At the end of the process, people will find a psychological place where they can wave the flag, take pride in their national identity, and still admit that this current war was a mistake. They just need to find a way to project the blame for that mistake on some alien force -- on The Other, on something which stands outside the "true" America.
We agree that Bush must be impeached. More than that, we must impeach everything he stood for.
And for God's sake, I wish you'd all quit it with this bellyaching about the recent statements that impeachment is off the table. That's precisely what I would say if I were Congress. To say anything else would be politically suicidal -- and I have had it up to fucking HERE with "purists" who insist on a noble suicide.
We need investigations. We all have a pretty good idea what those investigations will turn up. All we need are one or two talky whistleblowers, one or two smoking gun documents, and impeachment will find its way to the table with a rapidity reminiscent of Barry Allen on meth.
first of all, could not agree more with Joe on the impeachment obsession.
one of the issues we are currently so horrified about is the loss of our civil liberties. how dare any one of us demand that these men be impeached without granting them the due process we also demand for ourselves, and for even the worst of criminals. the truth shall set us free, and imprison them. BE PATIENT, BE SMART!
second, this discussion of the swing to the right after Nam leaves out a very important piece, namely the impeachment of nixon. conservatives retreated after that, and the loss of the war, and worked very hard, very deliberately, and very PATIENTLY to see to it that they regained power, and AT ALL COSTS. and we see where it has brought us now.
sociology can account for the tendencies and vulnerabilities of the people, but we must also hone in on the psychological actions of those who have worked to manipulate those vulnerabilities. it would seem prudent (ironic word to use here) for the dems to start shoring up some real rhetoric to guard against that happening again.
start with freeing the press!
Keeping quiet on impeachment may be politically expedient, but the notion that Bush and Cheney are entitled to a presumption of innocence is fairly mind-boggling.
If ever an administration met the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors, it's this one. And the fact is, there will be no impeachment. Democrats can find nothing worse than what's already known -- gross violations of the Constitution and international law, and capital war crimes.
I did not have a problem with Pelosi making the politically astute decision to take impeachment off the table prior to the election. I do have a problem with the latest e-mail I received from John Conyers saying that HE agrees that impeachment is off the table. This is a man who stood up heroically for the past few years for the necessity to impeach Bush on multiple charges. This is the man who wrote the book on the necessity of such proceedings, and I can only hope he is biding his time for good reason.
As for all the rest of those platitudes and straw men thrown at me, as well as the garbled and meandering history lessons, both of you are keener than your retorts show. I have to wonder if you aren't both projecting your own frustration on me.
I stand by my point, which is that if Bush is not impeached FOR THE WAR, the proto-fascists in this country will turn the blame for the humiliating defeat onto the liberals, and this country is going to look like 1930's Germany--where the same sequence of events occurred.
unirealist and all you others who are frothing for impeachment:
CHILL!!
honestly, it is very very important that this be handled like the slithering, testy snake that it is.
i just heard john nichols, who has written a book on impeachment and its beauty, share this important pearl: impeachment is meant to express the desires of the people, not political in-fighting. despite what we all know, few of us have actually given the evidence its due (emphasis there) analysis and weight.
i know, i know, what more do we need? well, fact it, in this country, under our justice system - the most elegant on earth, despite all its faults - this is the way justice is afforded EVERYONE. EVERYONE.
and yes, that also means bush and cheney.
if we can't muster this much, we have lost the moral highground, and rightfully so.
hell, folks, the nuremberg trials were the most profound statement of this fundamental pillar of our constitution. those monsters were given a fair trial.
we truly must never forget this perspective. it is so easy to fall prey to angry and vindictive reactions in the face of so much horror. but these are precisely the reactions most americans had after 9/11, and look where that has gotten us.
this is THE challenge to being a true american: to be able to offer the best of our justice to the least - and worst - among us.
District Attorneys do not announce to the press that, although an apparent crime has been committed, indictment is off the table.
An impeachment is an indictment, handed down by a grand jury, in this case the US House of Representatives. To get a conviction, evidence must be presented to a fair and impartial jury, in this case the US Senate.
I find it mind-boggling that anyone could objectively argue that impeachment (indictment) is unwarranted. So, what possible explanation is there for your and Joseph's opposition to impeachment except that you on on the side of short-term political expediency? And if either of you can offer substantive evidence that short-term political expendiency is ever good for society, please do.
I would only allow one reason for the Pelosi/Conyers denials of intention to impeach. Which is that they are concerned about what Bush might do between now and January if he expects such.
sorry , but unirealist has got this one right -- "impeachment" is nothing more than a motion in the House to hold a trial in the Senate.
Now. you could argue that there's inadequate public support for a trial, so it's best not pursued -- for political reasons.
But purely on a question of law, a Congress which did not immediately pursue such a trial would be derelict under the Constitution, given what's already in the public domain. Indeed, Bush himself proclaims powers for himself which are treasonous. If proclaiming yourself to be above the law isn't a high crime, what is?
Post a Comment