An excellent reply Tom Servo, thank you for the reasoned debate. I don't feel like playing the embedded quote game, so I'll take on a few of your points in the limited time I have this afternoon.
"This may be true, however, did that really justify impeachment? I would submit there would be a stronger argument that it did, if Bush and Cheney were being impeached right now. After all, I would say lying to the country about the reasons for a war, committing war crimes in the execution of a war, and perhaps even treason (Plame case) are certainly impeachable offenses, and I would submit far more serious impeachable offenses than lying about screwing around on one's wife."
How exactly did Bush and Cheney lie about the reasons for the war? There were several reasons, including the argument made by EVERYONE, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and many others going back to 1998 about Saddam's WMD aspirations. It is a fact that he used WMD on his own people and the Iranians in the 1980-88 war. He was in violation of 17 different UN resolutions, and was refusing access to his facilities, which he agreed to in 1991. He overplayed his hand, but I would have preferred not to have been proven right with a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or New York.
Even if you can prove that President Bush lied (defined as deliberate dissemination of information known to be untrue), and you can't. That is not an impeachable offense. Perjury, subornation of perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice are. If President Clinton had come out and said, "Yeah I got a BJ from her, whatcha gonna do about it", that would have made him a jerk, but not a criminal. What treason in the Plame case. If there was any crime in the revealing of her identity, Patrick Fitzgerald would have sought indictments for that crime. No crime, no treason.
"The left certainly does not hold a monopoly on this tactic."
Please cite examples of this from the right.
"I'd be interested if you'd point out a message on here in which someone judged PETA to be an oracle of truth."
Touche on that point, I was being somewhat sarcastic.
"Well, yes, if someone posts idiotic propaganda they're probably going to get some derisive remarks"
The ad-hominem attack is a favorite tactic of the left, If you can cite examples from the right (I'll give you Ann Coulter), I'd love to hear them. BTW, I did glance at the link in the original post, It appears to be throwing the democrats own words back at them. You might not like it, but that does not make it idiotic propaganda. Al Gore's movie, however, IS idiotic propaganda.
"Sounds logical to me. Or are you suggesting that Al Gore's energy bill is more important than these other issues?"
Al Gore's engery bill is not, but his his hippocracy (sp?) is a subject for debate and discussion. His attitude is typical of the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude of the limosine liberal left. (A favorite quote from the late Richard Jeni, "Limosine Liberals, they live in mansions with 20 rooms that are heated, nobody goes in 'em. They have swimming pools that are heated, nobody swims in 'em. They fly 20 seat jets BY THEMSELVES, clear across the country so they won't be late for that conference on energy conservation").
"that's really a topic for a thread on its own, but the short answer is that we must ask ourselves if we can do any good by staying. We should also bear in mind that the same "oh my we can't cut and run!" argument was used to keep us needlessly embroiled in Vietnam."
We are doing good by staying. 14 of 18 provences in Iraq are stable. The reinforcements in Baghdad are improving the tactical situation there. We are fighting Al Queda there instead of Kansas. If we were to pack up and leave, the terrorists will have won, and we WILL be fighting them in Kansas, they have said as much. As far as Vietnam goes, we WERE winning there, the military won EVERY battle. Tet was a stratigic and tactical disaster for the North Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong. It was the Lyndon Johnson and Walter Cronkite that lost Vietnam for us. Linebacker I and II had devastated the North militarily, and forced them back to the negotiating table. When we withdrew in 1973, it was with the assurance that we could comeback if the North violated the Paris Peace accords, which they did, almost immediately, moving through Cambodia and Laos. The Democrat controlled congress refuused to fund President Ford's request to keep our obligations to the South, leading to communist takeovers in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Pol Pot is conservatively estimated to be reponsible for 1.5-2 million deaths. Cutting and running in Iraq will lead to the same thing.
"1) This is the famous "But Clinton" defense. Let's get one thing straight. Just because Clinton did something does not justify Bush doing it. It does not remove Bush from culpability, although the Republicans seem to think it does.
2) Yes, Clinton replaced the prosecutors at the beginning of his term and no one blinked an eye because that's routine, and is how the system is set up. No one blinked an eye when Bush's dad did the same thing when he took office either. The difference here is that Bush Jr did it for purely political reasons, which is unprecedented."
The left like to say "oh, the old Clinton did it too defense", my point was, It was not illegal for Bill Clinton, It was not illegal for George Bush. Please provide some evidence that it was purely political, other than moveon.org talking points.
"We went from having the sympathy of the world to enduring the wrath of the world. The day after 9/11 even Iranians marched in the street in support of us. Then Bush started the foreign policy failures by naming Iran as a part of the "axis of evil." And were I you I really wouldn't bring up France - first off they were right about the war as we can now all see, and second, surely you're embarrassed by the kindergarten "freedom fries" tactic."
Sorry, I missed the "Iranians marching in support of us", I was busy that day, flying blood and medical supplies from Hanscom AFB to JFK airport. I would call, the current leader of Iran, who has called for the destruction of Israel and America "evil". France and Germany's only concern was keeping their deal with Saddam and their culpability in the oil for food scandal a secret. Their interest was financial and political, not moral. The simple fact is, it's time we stopped kowtowing to the rest of the world ala President Clinton. Europe hates President Bush because he doesn't kiss their butts. Let's be like Europe, oh boy, with their double digit unemployment and 90% tax rates. We are not Europe, we are America, the greatest country on the face of the earth. And I am sick and freakin' tired of pansie-a$$ liberal commie America haters blaming us for all the evils of the world. America always has, and always will be (unless you guys get your way) the greatest force for good the world has ever known. America feeds the world, defends it from tyranny (Nazism, Communism, Islamic Terrorists). Don't like it here, Delta is ready when you are, non-stop to France.
(Ok, rant over, sorry)
"Because No Child Left Behind is a complete flop. He mandated it but refused to fund it. Now schools are having to cancel programs in order to pay for this junk, that doesn't even work. Teachers are now required to teach to the test, which is really good if we're trying to turn out a crop of mindless automatons or factory workers (psst. Hey. We are) but not so good if we want citizens who can actually think for themselves."
Agree with much of what you said, but like I said, US schools have been turning out morons for decades. (look across the cubicle at the nearest reporter, most likely a product of government education). I believe President Bush should have pushed more for vouchers, so people who do not have John Kerry's wife's money can get their kids out of those crapholes.
"And he wasn't accused of that. He was accused of perjury."
President Clinton was not accused of cheating on his wife. He was accused of perjury.
"You're not really going there are you? The CIA itself told Bush for months before that SOTU address that the yellowcake story was bunk, but he went with it anyway."
They did not say it was bunk, they said it was currently unconfirmed. Also, the CIA has been working against President Bush from the beginning, as has much of the State Department. Remember, these are career bureaucrats, who don't like change, President Bush brought change. Also, it was a Democrat, President Clinton's appointee George Tenant, who called Saddam's WMD program "a slam dunk". Also, the British stood by their conclusions, and it was proven to be correct, in testamony before the Senate Select Committee on Intellegence and the 9/11 Commission.
"Again acting as though liberals have the corner on that market. I seem to recall neo-conservatives telling us that anyone who disagreed with them or anything they did (such as the war) was unpatriotic. If liberals advocate bringing the troops home (where they stand a much better chance of living and not being mutilated) is "not supporting the troops."
Disagreeing with me is not un-patriotic. but "supporting the troops", means supporting their mission. They are there by choice, every single man and woman in uniform today volunteered, and the vast majority support the reasons they are there. Supporting them means supporting their mission, not bringing them home in defeat, ala Vietnam.
ps, see how I manage to refer to Bill Cinton, whom I consider to be a disasterous President, has "President Clinton". I wish the left could manage the same courtesy.
