Does Bush get the "Worst President Ever" medal or does he get justice...?

look, i'm not convinced that impeachment per se is the right way to go... but, i do know that jerome is dead on in the essence of what he's saying...

So Democrats also think it's okay to go invade another country, to get several hundred thousand of its inhabitants killed, to proudly practice and promote torture around the world, to tear up the Geneva Conventions and a whole load of international treaties, and to go grab random foreigners around the world to put them in Guantanamo and throw away the key?

So not only was Bush reelected with a real majority, but the opposition essentially says that what he did is not so profoundly illegal that it deserves to be duly sanctioned?

Way to go.

The world is watching. And it will not forget.

[...]

Fear will not be enough when the whole world is convinced that America will not correct its current ways, and that the problem is not just the current administration.

let me expand on this a little bit... yes, the u.s. does need to take global perceptions into account, not because other countries should be the ones setting our course, but because the u.s. has such a disproportionate influence on the rest of the world and we ignore that at our peril... but, even more than that, we are doing a very bad thing even INSIDE our country if we allow the criminals currently in charge to fade away without the most severe of consequences... there have been a number of other really bad eggs who got off scott-free (mcnamara comes to mind) and we blew it then too... it's time that those who commit what can only be called atrocities (and, yes, i'm talking about iraq, guantanamo, abu ghraib, and black sites), be brought to justice... it isn't about a vendetta, goddamit... it's about JUSTICE... like i said above, i don't know if impeachment is the justice that's called for, but i do know that justice is most definitely called for...

markos makes the case against impeachment...

We can spend 2007 either pushing impeachment (which isn't as popular as Zogby claims, see Bowers' piece), or we can use it educating the American people about what a Democratic government would look like -- passing meaningful legislation that would improve their lives like the minimum wage, health care reform, ethics reform, stem cell research funding, policies that help families and the middle class.

Impeachment does none of that.

In a perfect world, we could do all of the above. But we don't live in a perfect world. And the second we start impeachment proceedings, the media will focus on that. Heck WE'LL focus on that, and the Democratic legislative agenda will fade into the background, ignored. A perfect opportunity to brand the Democratic Party in a positive light will be forever squandered.

So what is more important, proving that we can govern and making the case for future Democratic majorities? Or a high-profile vendetta campaign against Bush? It really is just one or the other.

It's an easy call.

Don't worry about Bush and company. Congress will pursue its oversight duties. Waxman and Slaughter and Conyers and the rest of those guys aren't about to take the next two years off. People will be held accountable. Impeachment isn't the old path to accountability.

And Bush? He's going down as the nation's Worst President Ever. We don't need "impeachment" to make that case, Bush has done a great job of it all by himself.

my faith in waxman, slaughter, and conyers, given the unfortunate number of duplicitous dems they have as colleagues, isn't nearly as strong as markos, i'm afraid... whether or not bush is tagged with the "worst president ever" medal means little to me... what does mean a great deal is that he and his criminal compadres have to face the real, very serious consequences, of their actions... that is the only thing that makes sense to me...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet