Posted on 10/19/2006 11:04:20 AM PDT by Philistone
The Case for Impeachment: What the Moonbats Need to Know
Note: Nothing is this post should be construed as a call to stay home in November. It is, rather, a worst-case scenario thought experiment on what could happen if the Dims manage to win a majority of the House.
Reminder: While the House may bring Articles of Impeachment by simple majority, conviction by the Senate requires a two-thirds majority. No one seriously believes that the Dims will gain a two-thirds majority of the Senate this year.While the impeachment process would be messy and take valuable intellectual resources away from the WOT, there is every reason to believe that it would backfire on the Moonbats in a BIG way.
The Grounds for Impeachment: (Moonbat style)
1) "Bush lied, people died."
2) "Bush illegally spied on Americans."
3) "Bush defied the Geneva Conventions and tortured people."
Now we on FR who do not limit ourselves to the MSM for our news know that these three claims are patently false. But if there were Impeachment hearings, even the MSM would be forced to run the hearings 24/7. And they would not like what they hear.
Presenting the facts in these cases as we now know them would be devesting for loonie left and their current front-runners.
As to point 1: The "famous 16 words" were in fact true. Saddam did attempt to "purchase uranium in Africa." Bush didn't lie, Joe Wilson did. Saddam DID have WMD (more than 500 sarin-filled artillery shells have been found to date). Saddam DID have contact with Al-Qaeda operatives, and allowed terrorist training camps in his territory. Saddam WAS planning terrorist activities against American interests in the Gulf and elsewhere. John Kerry and the other moonbats had access to the SAME intelligence information Bush had; they simply chose to ignore it before authorizing the war. (Illegal war? Then how come all but three moonbats authorized it?). The sanctions WERE being undermined by other countries including France, Russia and Germany as shown by the Oil-for-Food scandal. Moonbats from Kerry to Clinton called for Saddam's ouster as far back as 1998 when Bush was still just a Texas Governor.
On point 2: Bush had kept the moonbats informed of the terrorist surveillance program by reporting to the Senate Intelligence Select committee. All three moonbats on the committee have gone on public record to say that they SUPPORT the program and have no problems with it.
On point 3: In order to qualify for Geneva protections, combatants must wear some sort of identifying insignia to show that they are combatants. They must also come from countries which are signatories to the conventions. The cases of the Gitmo detainees obviously do not qualify them. As for torture, just this week, leading moonbat Hitlery Clinton declared publicly that she would authorize water boarding or other similar physical methods in the case of a clear and present danger in which the detainee had information about a plot to kill significant numbers of Americans. So much for the moonbat's arguments from the "moral" high ground.
If there WERE impeachment hearings, I'm convinced that all of this information would be laid out in a logical and consistant manner (rather than dripping through the blogosphere and ignored by the MSM as it is now). The MSM would be forced to present it 24/7 despite their political leanings. The American public would be able to see, in condensed form, just how hypocritical the moonbats really are.
And of course Bush and Cheney would be acquitted on all three counts.
Something for moonbats to consider before they start anything: be careful what you wish for.
Too many vanities today
Not from me... first one in months...
Click on by if you aren't interested.
As far as vanities go, it's a pretty good one.
He replied that Bush is just a puppet and only does what Cheney and big oil tell him to do. When I asked if he knew who would be President if Bush were to be impeached he just stood there looking dumb for a while, then said, "We'll get him too."
Fascist!
Too much unsolicited noob input as well
Welcome to Free Republic. It's clear you're an expert on these matters. Feel free to ping Mr. Robinson when next you post.
------And of course Bush and Cheney would be acquitted on all three counts.------
If the moonbats are dishonest enough to be moonbats in the first place, what would make you think they were honest enough to aquit the innocent? Because their friends in the MSM are watching? Puh-leeze.
The MSM might "have" to cover an impeachment trial but there's nothing to say they're going to give uninterrupted coverage at crucial points in the president's defense rather than cutting away to intellectually dishonest commentary.
If nothing else, they'll be pointing out that the times are "too perilous to leave such a controversial figure in the presidency".
I never said they would be honest. I said that nobody seriously believes that they are going to have 66 votes for impeachment come November...
Anyone who stays home is saying "I don't want to deal with all the complex issues facing me today", and kicking that can down the road to be dealt with later, which basically sums up the Clinton administration in a nutshell. You can choose to stay home on November 7, that's the beauty of living in a democracy. You can deal with the complex issues now, or wait until they fester. The reality is, no matter how much you try to ignore the issues of the day, eventually you're going to be faced with making a choice.
"(more than 500 sarin-filled artillery shells have been found to date)."
I got into a debate(?) with an (intellectually unarmed) moonbat..his statement was "no WMD's have been found in iraq"..my question to him was "define how many people have to die in one attack with one weapon before it is considered a weapon of mass destruction"..he said 500..I told him enough sarin gas cannisters were found in iraq to kill 20,000 Americans (dependent upon where they were detonated, population density etc..) so by HIS definition, WMD's WERE found..
needless to say, he called me every name in the book..nazi, homophobe (where that one came from I have no idea since that was nowhere in the conversation) and other names..I considered it a huge victory..after all, when they can't beat you, they go to the last defense which is name calling..
" You can deal with the complex issues now, or wait until they fester. The reality is, no matter how much you try to ignore the issues of the day, eventually you're going to be faced with making a choice. "
This is sooooo important! What scares me is that our kids [mine, anyway] think they're Dems because they've heard it so much on MSM. I told my aunt last Sunday I'm a Republican. She said, "that's terrible! The war is terrible, war for oil."
Why are sheeple so hellbent on stupidity?
NICE RANT, PHILLY!
---If the moonbats are dishonest enough to be moonbats in the first place, what would make you think they were honest enough to aquit the innocent? Because their friends in the MSM are watching? Puh-leeze.---
---I never said they would be honest. I said that nobody seriously believes that they are going to have 66 votes for impeachment come November.---
Ah, so your point is that the president will avoid conviction based solely on the fact that there's not enough moonbats?
That's very possible but I don't think the president would get more than 1 Democrat vote in his favor and would lose most of the votes of Chafee "republicans".
bookmark
It won't happen. That would require 100% party solidarity in the face of a patent sham and would almost certainly cost the Dems the House in the next election. Should it happen there the Dems would have to convince enough Republicans to cross over and vote for removal to reach 67, which would certainly cost them their seats and undoubtedly those of a few of the Dems as well. Not to mention the precedent it'd set that no President could serve with a Congress under control of the opposite party. Nobody, not even Pelosi, wants to go there.
I like the way you've laid out this argument.
My bad. Typed too quickly. As I stated in the main piece, a simple House majority is needed to Impeach. A 2/3 majority of the Senate is needed to convict.
My point is that yes, Bush might be "impeached" but he wouldn't be "convicted". The hearings would show the moonbats' true colors, and Bush would still be leading the WOT until January 2009...
My experience has been that it is the first, second, third and on and on tactic of the left. That is because your origins and affinity actually are more important to the left in determining whether you are "right" or "wrong" than the content of your views. The communists made this unabashedly explicit. The left is, over time, less and less embarrassed about it and put it more and more to the fore.
If truth and facts were the main criteria, then Bill Clinton would have been thrown out of office. And OJ would be in prison now.
The reality is that media circuses such as this are just excuses for liberal moonbats to make grandstanding speeches that are NOT based on any facts whatsoever, and for the MSM to play it as truth WITHOUT any challenges whatsoever. Then the generally lazy American public takes the 2-3 soundbites they hear on the MSM as fact.
There are a substancial percentage of Americans who honestly believe the Swift Boat Vets were just a bunch of liars. These people didn't read the book, nor did they follow the debates. The MSM only played the Kerry smears against the vets and the generally lazy American public took that as truth.
Democrats are damn lucky the MSM is in their corner. Otherwise, they wouldn't hold more than a few seats in government.
You make some good points in a nice summary here.
I, for one, don't believe that most of the DEMs running for office are stupid. Power-hungry, vengeful, liars, hypocrites...yes. But not stupid enough to expose their own ruse.
The impeachment ploy is simply presented to get the moonbat base voter energized. It seems to be working.
My reply to this one is always, "Is oil not important to you? What do you suppose would happen to your lifestyle if we lose access to oil?" It does not affect them because most of them truly cannot connect oil with production or lifestyles or anything other than rich fat cat industrialists busily repressing workers and stealing from mothers and children.
I'm old enough to remember being glued to the screen during the Watergate hearings (OK, to be honest, glued to the screen by my father who would watch nothing else). They ran all day on all three (at that time) networks, and then got repeated on PBS (this was before CSPAN) at night. The MSM would be FORCED to run any potential impeachment hearings where many Americans would get to hear for the first time on the MSM the facts in the case.
No one here believes that the Dims would be honest or ethical, but at least the people who rely only on the MSM for their news would get SOME facts that the MSM currently refuses to publish or show.
I have to agree with that. I don't think impeachment is probable even if they gain more seats than they think they're going to, even. Show trials that don't result in the removal of the President are going to generate a mountainous wave of backlash. There was an old adage about killing the King - it's a very, very bad thing to try and fail.
Never sell short the tactical shortsightedness of the left.
I don't think an impeachment and trial would necessarily expose the ruse.
You still are depending on the MSM to cover the event fairly and to present the raw facts which are presented in the trial.
Then you have to depend on the people to be paying enough attention to separate facts from rhetoric.
IMX, that in itself is a long shot.
You're dreaming.
Even IF the MSM made an effort to report the hearings in total, i.e. not cherry pick the the testimony that they want, the average adult in this country does not have the attention span to stay with the unrelentingly tediousness that is a Senate hearing. 30 minutes of Kennedy or Biden waxing eloquent before asking a single dumb ass question will drive most people away.
Results being that by the end, all non Bush haters would simply want it to go away. And the moonbat Bush haters wouldn't believe the truth if FDR arose from the grave and presented it carved in stone tablets retrieved from behind a burning bush.
It's a grass roots effort to get the Republican leadership to begin to campaign! Except for only a few conservative commentators, everyone has bought into the notion that the Republican base is going to either stay home or vote Democrat. Even Hannity has begun to hedge his bets. With a TV saturation blitz clearly delineating the differences between the Republican and Communist (Democrat) parties, the so-called "base" will get reenergized and vote in large enough numbers to counter the expected Democrat vote fraud. The only way for the Republicans to lose is to not play. If the party leadership has conceded this election, and has decided to save its money for the 2008 presidential race, then the conservative movement begun in 1994 is over. A new ad a day highlighting a single theme (fight the war/cut and run – tax cuts/tax increases – responsible judiciary/judicial activism – right to bear/gun confiscation – private property rights/eminent domain - energy independence/radical environmentalism - etc.) would counter the propaganda of the drive by media and would bolster the limp wristed conservative pundits to fight to win instead to retreat hopefully to fight another day.
To the RATS, it isn't outcome. It is intentions.
I doesn't matter who you are...that's funny.
If the Dems win, I believe they will Impeach G.W. Bush.
Why? Because of the "Clinton Legacy"! They want to bring Bush down in order to prop up Clinton. By impeaching Bush, Clinton will not be "only the 2nd president impeach", thus demonstrating for history that impeachment is political and not necessarily legal (though it is that too).
By denigrating Bush, they raise up Clinton (kind of like Lazarus). This is their thinking, IMO!
The hearings would show the moonbats' true colors
Thank you
/grin
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.