Re: Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Michael Zara wrote:

> 
> > I don't want to know about, much less agree with anything called "Bijan's
> > thrust"... Egads!
> 
> actually, I think that will be the name of my new band: "Ladies and
> Gentlemen, please welcome Bijan's Thrust!"

Even I don't want to go there.

Zoe would *kill* me if I suggested that name for a band of hers :)

> > Really? Gross violations of the law governing the use of international force
> > isn't a high crime?
> 
> yes, but this is not what Clinton was impeached for.  That's my point about
> abuse of the system.

Well, wait. I thought the discussion is whether Bush can be impeached for
his "youthful evil". Jack's original point was "by the rules, you
can't". He was wrong though I don't quite see where he admitted that ;)

That is, you can pretty much *impeach* the prez for whatever you
want. Whether the trial will be successful is a different matter. Whether
it's overall helpful or hurtful is yet another matter.

I have to revise my statement about the success of the Clinton
impeachment. Tactically, it prolly was a mess (especially if they aimed to
weaken Clinton, it prolly helped him given all his *other* weaknesses). As
a way to *smear* Clinton, at least for the historical record, it's also
unclear. As a rallying point for the true believers, it was great. As a
froth generating mechanism, it was great.

The dems just don't seem to have a taste for this sort of scorched earth
tactics for either short term or long term goals. I think that's problem
given the fact that the repugs *are* so willing. If evil repug tactics
aren't turned on them, what incentive to they have to stop?

Of course, this gets you into escalation dynamics. <sigh/>

[snip]

Cheers,
Bijan.