Look, if you believe that Bush and Cheney are as bad as Mark clearly does, I would be very interested in hearing why you wouldn't want the guy impeached. Stand up for your principles and grow a pair, for God's sake. Arguing, as Mark has repeatedly done, that Bush and Cheney are guilty of all manner of high crimes and constitutional violations, only to remain agnostic on the issue of whether or not they should be impeached strikes me as nothing short of either cognitive dissonance or rhetorical disconnect. If you believe someone has committed these types of offenses but don't believe that they were impeached, then what in God's name do you think that the constitutional power is there for?
In a way, this kind of rhetorical tap-dancing is rather like his other claim that he doesn't support Ron Paul when all of his actions to date appear to speak to the contrary. Or to put it another way, it is akin to how Giuliani sounds when he tells us about how much he hates abortion. Speaking of which, it's "Rudy McRomney," not "McRomneyani Troika." If you are going to use a pejorative, at least get it right.
Also, since K of C does a pretty good job of refuting Mark's nuttiness for me, I figure I'll just repost with several parts that I particularly agree with bolded:
[T]he rank and file are unimpressed with the foreordained McRomneyani Troika who the Powers have decreed they must choose from.
(1) Who are these "Powers"?
(2) Where can I find the decree ordering GOP primary voters to choose from only the foreordained?
(3) Is this decree written in the blood of murdered Catholic infants, or is it just distributed telepathically?
(4) What is the relationship between the Powers and:
(a) The Freemasons
(b) The Illuminati
(c) The Kiwanas
(d) The Secret Cabal of Ron Paul-Supressing Anti-Chesterton Ninja Pirates?
(5) Do you realize that they're tunnelling under your house?
When Clinton was on the ropes the GOP base was behind the GOP even if much of the rest of the country wasn't and the GOP ultimately benefited.
I wouldn't call the outcome of the 1998 midterm elections a benefit to the GOP.
K the C | 07.09.07 - 12:37 pm | #
Did you give milions upon millions of dollars to McRomneyani?
Me neither. Somebody did.
If the "Mc" stands for "McCain," then no one actually gave milllions upon millions of dollars to McCain, and if they did they're gone now. McCain is reported to have less cash than Ron Paul (R-Mars). If money donations are indicative of foreordainment, and McCain is foreordained, then Ron Paul must also be foreordained.
K the C | 07.09.07 - 12:55 pm | #
If we can't Impeach a President who lied us into an UnJust War,
Unjust, maybe. But to say that Bush "lied us into... war" is to say that he managed to pull the wool over the eyes of a majority of the House and Senate, including large numbers of Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, who had access to the same intelligence that her husband had for eight years.
Like I said, we can impeach him if we want, but it would be pretty stupid.
Bush and Blair were bombing, among other things, Iraqi civilian non-military targets and embargoing food and medicine etc with no legal right to do so.
The UN sanctions weren't legal? Okay, fine, but let's indict Kofi Annan & Pals for war crimes, too.
Saddam was a THREAT? To US?
Time to read up on Just War doctrine. The threat doesn't have to be against the party bringing military action. Defense of others can be a valid grounds for a just war.
it appears to me the rules and standards we applied to Nazi's do not apply to us.
Thank goodness, as the Nurenberg trials were a travesty of victor's justice. But hey, the ends justify the means, right? They were Nazis, so they didn't deserve a fair trial. Same with Bush.
K the C | 07.09.07 - 5:53 pm | #
Well, in that case hooray for John Wilkes Booth. Abraham Lincoln got rid of habeas corpus, treated at least a quarter of the country as enemy combatants, allowed slavery to persist until the end of the "war," and replaced his commanders at will. Can we at least call him "worst President of the 1800s?"
HokiePundit W&M 0L | Homepage | 07.09.07 - 9:06 pm | #
Memo to Bush Excusers: George W. Bush is not Lincoln. This is not the Civil War. You can now abandon that extremely threadbare excuse for Dubya's excesses.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 07.09.07 - 9:14 pm | #
Bush isn't Lincoln? This isn't the Civil War? Glad we got that cleared up. Of course, comparisons are a very weak tool if the two things being compared are the same. However, they work when comparing different things, such as the quality of your apologetics (excellent) and the quality of your arguments in BDS-affected posts (mediocre at best).
Bush also isn't FDR and this isn't WWII (a boondoggle in foreign lands of which no good ever came, yes?), but FDR threatened to shut down media outlets that showed material he deemed damaging to the war effort. He also put thousands of innocent Americans of Japanese descent into camps; Bush has put a few hundred likely terrorists into a prison where they receive more calories per day than the Marines guarding them.
You may not like what Bush is doing, and you may have expected better, but it's certainly not unprecedented, nor does it even rise to the level of things done in the past.
HokiePundit W&M 0L | Homepage | 07.10.07 - 1:11 am | #
Quite possibly nobody in the history of the republic has done more to stamp out rational conservative political thought and divide conservative opinion than GWB. He's a divider, not a uniter, though (to all appearances) unintentionally so.
I never know what to make of this assertion. How does an intellectual lightweight like W "stamp out rational conservative political thought"? Last time I checked, Commentary was still publishing. Heritage and Cato haven't boarded up. Pat Buchanan and Taki Getdrunkfalldownchaseskirtsopolis rolled out a new magazine. Conservatism is just fine. If anything, Bush helped to discredit the least conservative element of conservatism, the Neoconservatives, and revitilized the Paleos.
Bush is a divider? I guess, if your measure of division is robust internal conservative debate. I can't see that as harmful to conservatism, unless its's your particular brand of conservatism that's losing the debate. But even when Bush has been bad, he's often united conservatives. Conservatives united against Harriet Meiers, and they united against comprehensive immigration reform.
Bush isn't a movement conservative, and never was. Conservatives rolled their eyes when Bush rolled out "compassionate conservatism." I don't think he can do much damage to a school of thought that he was never a part of. What would really harm conservatism is if conservative intellectuals decided that the whole enterprise was fundamentally flawed, but I don't see anyone doing that.
Oh, certainly Bush has harmed the GOP. The party is in worse shape than when he found it, but what does that have to do with conservatism? If anything, Bush's time at the helm has swung the momentum in the party back towards paleoconservatism. The party got fat and happy and lost its way long before Bush took office. For the first time in more than two decades, a real conservative may win the GOP nomination. Contra Mark, conservatives have real power to push the GOP to where they want it to go, witness the immigration and Meiers debacles.
Anyway, if you can show me how Bush has harmed the conservative intellectual enterprise, I'd love to hear it. Until then, "Bush harmed conservatism" will remain another way of saying "Bush isn't a conservative and I don't like him."
Also, might I suggest that one who is now arguing that conservatives use "Bush Derangement Syndrome" as a way to insulate our leader from criticism (which was so apparent during the immigration debate) is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black given that Mark's now-frequent accusation that his critics are in league with us here at the Coalition for Fog.