|
From patriotnews.com The Old Doctor
MUNCIE, Ind (patriotnews.com) I've noted elsewhere on these pages that I don't like the idea of impeaching presidents. As a matter of national responsibility I think we should live with our electoral mistakes and tolerate those personal foibles of our presidents that don't infringe directly on The Constitution or compromise national security. Now there's unquestionably an argument to be made in favor of the proposition that The President compromised national security by invading Iraq, but it's not an argument most Americans can make with a clear conscience. The fact is that the "level heads" that I expected to emerge during the Iraq argument instead hid in the sands in fear of being accused of giving comfort to the enemy, failing to support the troops or being rhetorically unpatriotic. For failing to take a principled stand when the fat was not yet in the fire, they are equally complicit with those who were leading the charge to war. That complicity robs too many democrats of the most potent weapon in the political arsenal, righteous outrage. That argument is too easy for the GOP to repudiate in the aftermath of the vote, simply saying, with dead on accuracy, "Well, yes, I did but so did you!" This is not solely a problem of conscience for the politicians who voted the wrong way. A majority of Americans, including too many democrats, in the days after war was proposed, "went along with the program" for the same reasons as the politicians. That was easier for the war hawks to do than it was in years past. During the years of the Vietnam war there were legions of veterans of world war II and the Korean conflict to stifle the war cries of those trying to silence dissent and promote violence in foreign lands in the name of the people of the United States. Today, most of the veterans of the second world war, and Korea, are dead, and most Vietnam vets are in or approaching their dotage. So with the exception of the remaining handful of troops who participated the the Panama victory in the war on drugs or the first destruction of Saddam's army in 1991, most of the senior leadership of the military lacked combat experience going into the Iraq invasion.
But in Iraq, everything is not sweetness and light. Instead, in too many places it is chaos and open tribal and sectarian warfare. The new Iraqi government, which in recent days is the only success claimed by The President, cannot operate in the open. The police and military units of the government are riddled with members whose first allegiance is to one cleric or another, or to one insurgent faction or another. Certainly, in terms of their ability to control their turf, the religious and insurgent militias are having far more success than our military, who continue to be seen, by a majority of Iraqis, as invaders and occupiers they'd like to see leave their country, post haste. One of the odd points in our national history is the fact that only two American presidents have been formally impeached. Given the number of presidents who have screwed up their jobs, and the fact that an impeachable offense is any damned thing the house wants to make an issue, it's a wonder impeachment is so rare. That's one reason so many democrats were outraged at the efforts of republicans, especially in the house, to impeach Bubba. Somehow, given the fact that so many presidents had gotten away with so much without being impeached, it seemed egregiously unfair to go after him for something that, no matter how one spins it, amounted to nothing more nor less than lying about sex. That righteously felt outrage still holds sway among millions of democrats who now believe they have good reason to impeach President Bush. If the democrats win the house, there will be impeachment. If you like long, convoluted reasoning of the rhetorical Rube Goldberg variety, consider this proposition: The world owes the failed military adventure of Iraq to the bad manners and uncivil discourse authored and implemented by Newt Gingrich, the real father of today's nastiness in politics and through bad manners ultimately responsible for the war in Iraq. It was bad manners that sparked the republican revolution of Newt Gingrich and friends. It was therefore Newt's nasty little phrase book that allowed the GOP to win, and it's the demonstrated success of that strategy that guarantees the GOP will respond to democratic talk of impeachment with the nastiest rhetoric they can muster. Most folks my age were raised to know the importance of being socially correct in approaching one's neighbors and friends on contentious questions of any sort, but especially politics. Most men my age recognized that aggressive behavior toward male peers, even merely aggressive words, could be reason for an immediate and jaw busting response. Newt recognized that had changed as our generation aged, and that the mores of the new day he proclaimed were more likely to produce, in the person transgressed, shock sufficient to preclude an actual physical encounter. He was betting that republicans could insult, demean and ridicule their way to control of the house, senate and White House. And he was right.
Newt's 1990 GOPAC memo, distributed to republican candidates throughout the country, was titled, "Language, a Key Mechanism of Control." In it Newt provided a set of "optomistic, positive governing words and phrases" that candidates were urged to use in reference to themselves and their campaigns. Candidates were told to refer to their campaigns as "caring," to say that they represented "liberty," "freedom" and "morals," while referring to their opponents using words like "greedy," "incompetent," "intolerant" ... even "traitors." The list is much longer, of course, but you get the idea. It is a sad commentary on the intellect and political sophistication of American politics that the tactics of confrontation and personal nastiness continue to work. This time, though, unless The President can pull an Iraq victory out of his butt, it will be his party subject to the the scorn of the democrats, and most likely a majority of the American people, and President Bush who will be the subject of impeachment. If you'd like to seriously address this article, please send email, subject, "Letter to the Editor," to patrioteditor@comcast.net. Your comments will be carefully considered and if meritorious will be published. We will not publish email that is hateful, disrespectful or otherwise inappropriate. If you'd just like to argue with the writer, between river trips you may catch him at Faded Glory Political Forum, where he is a regular.
© Copyright by patriotnews.com |
Should President Bush be impeached?
Not everyone went along with the program. Personally, I did my best to convince anyone who would listen that we were embarked upon a fool's errand. There were vets here in Muncie and elsewhere across the country who participated in protests, marches and demonstrations. A handful of democrats and a handful of vets organizations spoke out against the actions proposed, but it was a pitiful effort in the face of what was a well planned, well orchestrated and previously determined scheme to invade Iraq, for purposes that even now are not clear to me nor to most Americans. Had the Bush war reconstruction plans succeeded even half as well as his plans for taking the nation to war, everything in Iraq today would be sweetness and light and his approval ratings would be at new highs.
For those unfamiliar with the subject, here's a small kernel of the meticulously planned and highly effective plan Newt devised to seize control of America's politics by the mere expedient of aggressive language and rhetorical posturing, a plan that worked and continues to work. It's the mean language that won republican control and the language that will guarantee no quarter for The President should his party lose control of Congress.