Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gopher]

How probable do you consider this wishful-thinking assertion?

And, as a follow-up: will dozens of [hypothetical and unnamed obsessed-with-W.-Bush Dave's-ESL-Cafe poster's] threads change any of this?

[Kuros]

Actually, Gopher, I can only think of two posters who continuously call for an impeachment. One of them is a troll. The other is sincere, but also thinks anyone who disagrees with him ever is an idiot. So its hard to believe he'll be happy under any leader.

Regarding the poll, I voted very unlikely, and only because Bush's term isn't over. We do not know what revelations could pop up or what actions he might take.

Bush is totally lame ducked. Even his own party is going after his attorney-general on charges that seem kinda, well, political. That's not to say that the attorney-general doesn't deserve to go on other charges, because in a sense I believe Bush may deserve this treatment for other offenses. The point is, Bush isn't going to be able to really do anything.

The Democrats know this. They don't have enough muscle to impeach him, and Pelosi made the right choice in not going there. Right now, the Democrats are campaigning on Bush's continued recalcitrance. And Bush simply must stay the course. How can he tell his Southern-rural voting bloc that the war was a mistake after all, and the lives given for it were wasted? It would lead to a long GOP hibernation.

The Democrats are biding their time. They should know that gerrymandering has capped their '06 landslide, and they have a good position to regain for themselves the 40-year long majority they lost in '94. And with the gerrymandering rules in place, and put in place under the other party's majority, they can take advantage of it with less suspicion or a lesser prospect of electoral backlash.

So while I continue to watch Bush's asinine diplomacy; where he refuses to make concessions with Kosovo in exchange for Russian support with Iran; where he refuses to force an unpopular Olmert to even try to address Israeli violence in Gaza (Bush should at least pretend to care, dammit); and where he needs to have Pelosi go and deal with Syria-Israeli-Lebanon for him; I feel with some uneasy discomfort, that the Democrats will likely win the next Presidency and majority of the Senate. This will allow them, in turn, to make all kinds of new mistakes and problems that we thought weren't possible after 8 years of Bush. And some will be shocked to find, OMG, maybe the Democrats aren't as bad as Bush (most individual Republicans aren't as bad as Bush), but they sure can f- things up royally as well.

[Gopher]

I agree that W. Bush's foreign policy is "asinine" or indeed worse.

When so many conservative members of the foreign-policy establishment and the military, on- and off-the-record, so strongly disagree with what he has done and where he has gone, it is clear that his represents an extremist White House.

On the other hand, I just do not see an impeachment. The opposition's strength notwithstanding, I do not see clear and obvious grounds for impeaching him.

I, too, voted "not very likely." Perhaps something new, conclusive, and incontrovertible will turn up...?

[Ya-ta Boy]

Should VeeP Chaney keel over dead tonight, I would consider changing my vote to 'possible', but as long as he is alive and breathing down our necks, I can think of no one but his wife Lynne who might want him to replace Bush. Ever since they were elected, the rumor has been that Cheney is the power behind the throne. Would people who don't like Bush really be stupid enough to install the source of their misery? I don't think so.

Besides, impeachment is a months-long affair...committee hearings followed by House proceedings...It's already late April. Even if they started today, they couldn't finish much before Christmas and by then the presidential campaigns will be going full blast (if they aren't now).

IMO, the biggest reason not to even try is because impeachment itself is useless unless conviction in the Senate is a possibility. It is not. So impeachment would only be politically embarrassing at best for the Democrats. Also, I don't subscribe to the politics-as-revenge school of thought.

We've had two impeachments in our history, both politically motivated and both will be remembered as shabby affairs. The third attempt, the only one justified by the facts, was cut short by resignation. With only one attempt to remove a president in the first century and three-quarters and then two within 3 decades, if we add a fourth one, we'd be firmly in banana republic territory. No thanks.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

I think the Democrats should go for it.

[EFLtrainer]

What is ignored in this debate is:

1. An impeachment would open up all those secret/lost files far more effectively.

2. If the actual rule of law is not what we see and what other nations see, then there is no rule of law. If there is no rule of law, there is no legitimacy.

3. Using the probability of success as a reason for or against is pointless. It ignores the purpose of the law: to bring people to justice. Impeachment is a political act, not a legal one, per se. Its effect is political. Thus, its reason for being carried out is political. The political gains of restoring the rule of law are undeniable, unless you think the status quo is a good thing. I, obviously, do not.

4. Why would any American trust any politician who ignores the rule of law when it applies to a president, but pursues it against anyone else? Pelosi and th rest who have taken this "off the table" are not fulfilling their responsibilities and are ignoring the law. Do they not leave themselves open to the question, "Why don't they want to reign in imperial presidency?" It makes their actions suspect. The impression they are just waiting their turn at the power trough is something they should consider.

5. International trust and respect for the US lies in the fundamental beliefs we hold and that are enshrined in the Constitution, despite our flaws. If th world at large no longer trusts that our core lies in the Constitution, their distrust generalizes to the US rather than a given administration or official. Thus, when the corrupt president and his handlers are gone, the stink doesn't leave. A new presidency doesn't wash away the bad acts of the previous any longer.

6.

[Gopher]

BLT: I think I can confidently speak for both Kuros and Ya-ta on this and respond that W. Bush "disgusts" (for lack of a better term) all of us -- that is, none of us are in love with the President, to say the least.

The questions each of us raise are these, however: how is that impeachable? and/or would it be politically-wise to move to impeach based on the evidence currently before us -- especially given the correlation of forces in Congress? What consequences would a failed move to impeach create?

The fact that you do not care about these questions betrays much about your obsession "to get" the man, come what may...

[EFLtrainer]

[gang ah jee]

I voted 'unknown', just because I don't understand all of the issues involved to make an informed judgement on this. I think that from what we know at the moment it's unlikely, but this could change - public opinion may reach a tipping point, or other evidence could surface, etc.

From my perspective on the sidelines, I think that impeachment would have two main benefits: it would a) automatically impart the measure of historical notoriety that Bush deserves, and b) serve to distance the US system from the blunders of the last 6 years.

To be honest though, I'm not completely clear on what all of the potential downsides would be, so I'm interested in reading any additional arguments or articles anyone would like to post.

[Gopher]

[EFLtrainer]

gaj: I can't think of a single down side to impeachment. How can it possibly be bad to investigate known illegalities?

More from the same articles:

[gang ah jee]

[Gopher]

Gang ah jee: your position seems to presuppose that (a) W. Bush has definitely committed impeachable offenses against the Constitution; and that (b) sufficient evidence exists to establish this and convince sufficient Senators and Congressmen to make it happen.

How do you know this?

[EFLtrainer]

[EFLtrainer]