George McGovern: "Impeach Bush/Cheney Right Now"

Actually, Gibson tried to pounce on this false comparison, too, and was pretty well rebuffed by Barack Obama.

 

I didn't watch the debate but read the AP lede. Why is it a false comparison?

 

I'd like to see Bush/Cheney impeached. I don't agree that it is important that we do it to show the world though. It's important for this country to show ourselves and our neighbors that we won't tolerate leaders with Bush/Cheney ethics.

 

If you've got proof of a crime, let's see it.

 

Because there is a substantive difference between invading a nation preemptively to remove its leader because we don't like him on the one hand and using a tactical strike to kill a man who is responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans on the other.

Also, Obama, Edwards and Clinton all made the point that diplomacy with Pakistan would be a much bigger priority for them than it has been for this administration, and that the "what if" scenario Gibson described was as a last resort.

 

dick is your hero, isn't he?

 

I don't have any. I agree with the sentiment that disagreement shouldn't lead to calls for impeachment. I also agree that you need to have the goods to call for impeachment anywhere besides a message-board. That said, my intuition says that these guys are crooked, and I'd like to see my intuition validated.

Previous paragraph was a conciliatory/nice way of saying things. Here's how I really feel: Bush/Cheney have disregarded the Constitution from day one and have done more potential harm to this country than any U.S. government, ever (well, FDR probably still holds this title at the moment, we'll see how history judges Bush). They've achieved this by running circles around the Constitution to "protect" us. They've lied repeatedly in their pursuit of power and wealth. It isn't a matter of ideology. It is that these guys have corrupted a system they'd been entrusted to uphold.

 

Some would say we've been overly diplomatic with Pakistan already. And I think the evidence at the time provided more than a "because we don't like him" rationale for an invasion.

I guarantee you, if Bush did something like that in Pakistan, people would have been screaming bloody murder about it. (It would have been fine by me.)

 

Leaving your other missives aside for now, I'm intrigued about your FDR reference. What do you mean by that?

 

About as much as Hugo Chavez must be yours.

 

That's a pretty insulting thing to say on sportsjournalists.com, don't you think?

 

You can believe that people would have reacted badly to Bush taking out Bin Laden in Pakistan if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a big difference between an action like that and an action like the war on and occupation of Iraq, meaning the situations are not analagous.

And I think we're at cross-purposes with our meanings of "diplomacy," but that's for another time.