(no subject)

[serene]

In response to some comments on my last post, to which LJ will not let me reply:

1) Yes, elections are our way of dethroning dictators, and that's essentially what I'm talking about. However,

2) if one of king george's cronies succeeds him, we've failed, and

3) waiting for an election means 3.5 more years of a lying murderer in charge of my country, so if I see a viable impeachment effort, I will work for that. No one has ever deserved impeachment more.

Comments

Pragmatic politics

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

Point three: the next election is in 2006 and can have a bigger and more immediate impact on things than waiting for 2008. Changing the composition of the US Congress, as well as state legislatures and governorships, can only help the goal of keeping a lickspittle toady of a successor to George Lackballot out of the Oval Office.

Find your local or county Democratic party organization and volunteer. Even if you are a Green or a Libertarian, for the next year the Democrats have the best infrastructure in place to get this particular weeding out done.

Re: Pragmatic politics

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

I disagree respectfully.

My opinion is that if Bush is not impeached, the precedent will be too terrible to accept. A mere "not-Bush" as our next President (i.e.: someone who runs as "I'm not him, and never will be like him") is *not* enough. That says that starting wars for bullshit reasons is okay... and it's not.

Re: Pragmatic politics

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I don't see how working to change the balance in the Senate and House of Representatives to a Democratic majority would hurt the case for impeachment.

Re: Pragmatic politics

[lysana.livejournal.com]

Neither do I. In fact, it would improve the odds such an attempt would get anywhere.

Re: Pragmatic politics

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

My disagreement is only in that preventing a successor is sufficient.

I do agree that trying to over-reach that goal in the short term will damage it... but ever since early November, I knew that elections weren't sufficient.

And yes, I'll be doing what I can to help bring about changes in the house and senate. I'm just really nervous about having people think that's *enough*. It's not... we can't let people yearn for the "good old days" when a "morally certain, and plainspoken hero" occupied the White House.

Re: Pragmatic politics

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

Those would be the Reagan years, correct?

Re: Pragmatic politics

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

Chuckle; in a real sense, yes. That people look back on the Reagan years as a golden time (and that people can cautiously praise Nixon these days) is exactly why I'm afraid of Bush getting away with his crap.

Reagan was bad; he showed the possibilities. Bush is worse (IMHO), because he realized them.

Reagan showed that you could use force in a limited way and come to the American people with fait acompli and be cheered for it. Bush took that and ran with it, and is trying to make Iraq heroic.

(NB: I think that taking care of Iraq in a conclusive manner was necessary. Ending the sanctions, with a satisfactory level of certainty that SH was not a major threat, was necessary and a good thing. The manner in which it was done, and the attitude with which it was done, was criminal and stupid and really harmful.)

Reagan showed you could sell weapons to Iran and get away with it; Bush showed that you can kidnap and torture people, and get away with it.

Hell... what scares me is how Durbin is being viewed, and how many Democrats are playing along. If I read that description, would I have thought that was America, back during even the tough-talking Reagan years? No. I'd have glared at someone saying such a thing, and say "show proof, asshole." I'd have been that confident that I was being lied to that it wouldn't bear thinking about.

No, I wouldn't have thought it was the worst of Nazi Germany... but I would have thought it *was* something like Nazi Germany... "Nazi Germany, the early years". Not the worst of the worst, but part of the worst.

I had a description of the holding cell for one terrorist in Abu Graib ("Terrorist" is a fair term in this case) in one of my entries several weeks back, and I was infuriated by the description. It's like, sometimes you have to kill a person, okay? I get that. Sometimes you have to kill people, but you *never* have to treat them like that. (A 2x1 meter cell, no light, no windows, no water, no toilet - I assume he got the traditional two buckets, one for food, one for slops, but who knows?)

This was his *CELL*. This was his *DETENTION QUARTERS*, as shown to the ICRC. This wasn't "he's being kept in solitary for attacking a guard".

And people ask if the military can investigate itself, and the answer is clearly "no", because this was listed smack in the middle of the Fay report on the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but was not considered one of them.

And I'm ranting, aren't I? I'll stop.