Poll on Bush v Clinton impeachment sentiment

[gnome]

That passage[PDF] was written in 1942. When was George W. Bush born?

You're changing the argument here... few have said that captured enemy combatants should have a criminal trial under American public jurisdiction. The issue at hand is whether detainees can challenge their status AS captured enemy combatants and say "hey! I'm NOT a captured enemy combatant! They picked me up in Dearborn!" -- "Shut up terrorist, you're not allowed to have a lawyer."

 

[BeAChooser]

The problem is they impeached Clinton for the wrong thing (it should have been for something Chinagate or Filegate related ... like been selling out US security for campaign cash or trying to obtain blackmail material on Republicans), just as they are trying to impeach Bush for the wrong thing (if he were to be impeached at all, it should be for not investigating and prosecuting the crimes of the last administration).

 

[Dorian Gray]

Impeachment is a political move, and while I tend to agree with your sentiments on h.c. suspension being bad, the Republicans impeaching Lincoln makes no sense during the Civil War. DR

Lincoln WAS a Republican, back when it was a third party. Why would his own party impeach him?

 

[Complexity]

I'd hope the answer would be "Principle" or "Because its the right thing to do".

Sigh...

Lincoln WAS a Republican, back when it was a third party. Why would his own party impeach him?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Lincoln WAS a Republican, back when it was a third party. Why would his own party impeach him?

Sorta my point.

DR

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay
So you're just going to ignore the fact that Afghanistan started the war, not us?

I'll never forget the day that the Afghani army came rolling into my town in their tanks, blasting away....

wait. that's not right.

-----------------------------------

I'll never forget the day that people in Afghani uniforms marched......

no, still not right.

-----------------------------------

I'll never forget when the Afghani people took up arms against....

nuh-uh.



Okay, explain the fact how Afghanistan started the war again? Wasn't it pretty much these guys (with not an Afghani in the bunch)?

Upchurch.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

skeptigirl

Since you have already excused Clinton for conspiring to deprive a citizen her rights I won't go there.

Wow.

 

[Art Vandelay]

You're changing the argument here... few have said that captured enemy combatants should have a criminal trial under American public jurisdiction.

No, you're the one changing the argument. The argument was over the oft-repeated idiocy that Bush invented the concept of an illegal combatant. Cylinder went to the trouble of pointing out the falsity of that claim, although it should be obvious any sense at all that they should actually check their claims before posting them, rather than wasting our time spouting baseless accusations. Note to skeptigirl: this is what an actual "talking point" looks like.

I'll never forget the day that the Afghani army came rolling into my town in their tanks, blasting away....

What a childish response. How many Germans were in the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Your response is too insipid to believe that anyone can seriously be making it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, you're the one changing the argument. The argument was over the oft-repeated idiocy that Bush invented the concept of an illegal combatant. Cylinder went to the trouble of pointing out the falsity of that claim, although it should be obvious any sense at all that they should actually check their claims before posting them, rather than wasting our time spouting baseless accusations. Note to skeptigirl: this is what an actual "talking point" looks like.

It's probably over your head Art, but try this to learn a little about talking points. If you really want to educate yourself, the talking points expert himself, Frank luntz, wrote a book on the subject, Words that Work. You'd like it, he was working for the Republicans when he wrote it. Here's a summary of the book.

What a childish response. How many Germans were in the attack on Pearl Harbor?......

I'll never forget the day that the Afghani army went rolling into France in their tanks, blasting away....

wait. that's not right.

-----------------------------------

I'll never forget the day that people in Afghani uniforms marched into Poland......

no, still not right.

-----------------------------------

I'll never forget when the Afghani people took up arms against....

nuh-uh.

 

[Art Vandelay]

It's probably over your head Art, but try this to learn a little about talking points.

You know, it is customary, when quoting another person's post, to follow it with a response that actually has something to do with what they said, rather than posting a complete non sequitur that does nothing to address their point. And here's some reading material you really should check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You have repeatedly referred to one of my positions as a "strawman", despite it not fulfilling the definition:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

Did you see what I did there? I presented a link, I explained how it counters your position, and I provided a quote from the link establishing that. I didn't just post a link and then declare myself the victor.

 

[gnome]

No, you're the one changing the argument. The argument was over the oft-repeated idiocy that Bush invented the concept of an illegal combatant.

Let's say I stipulate Bush didn't invent the concept. What's your opinion of my concern?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Art, your straw man: This is about subpoenas that are fishing expeditions.

Real issue: the subpoenas are based on a mountain of evidence of wrong doing.

Is that simple enough for you? You want to dismiss the evidence and only discuss your fake issue the oversight committee is looking for misdeeds but they have no evidence.

Bull.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Let's say I stipulate Bush didn't invent the concept. What's your opinion of my concern?

I guess I've given up on the Constitution meaning everything. I remember right after 9/11, thousands of people were held as "material witnesses". They weren't necessarily criminals, POW's, or unlawful combatants. The government simply said "these are people we don't want moving freely, so we've put them in jail." There was a bit of complaint about that, but for the most part it blew over. And they were mostly from the US, rather than captured on foreign soil as most of the people in Gitmo are. So I don't get what the fuss is about with Gitmo.

It's like seeing someone with a pistol, rifle, shotgun, and bazooka, and demanding that he turn over his rifle. I don't get the point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's fine with you the government swept up thousands of people whose only crime was being Arab and an immigrant. As long as it didn't affect you, right Art? Clear those camel jockeys out, and take those turban wearing Sikhs while you're at it. Makes Bush look like he's doing something.

Here's one of the official reports.

Here's an ACLU in depth discussion.

Of course the BBC actually covered the story.

And then there are the oversight committees. Thank goodness someone is paying attention.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Found this as I was looking for stuff on the post 9/11 mass arrests. Just had to post it as long as I'm annoying Art and a few others with my unabashed Bush bashing.

Blog entry. June 27, 2005
I Just Can't Make This S#$% Up

Does he not know how truly awful his credibility is?

President's Statement on United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture

On United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States reaffirms its commitment to the worldwide elimination of torture. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.

Someone please tell him that charity begins at home and to practice what he preaches.

It referred to this:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 26, 2005

President's Statement on United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture

On United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States reaffirms its commitment to the worldwide elimination of torture. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.

The United States is continuing to work to expand freedom and democracy throughout the world. We will seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, and we will help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way. Throughout the world, there are many who have been seeking to have their voices heard, to stand up for their right to freedom, and to break the chains of tyranny. Too many of those courageous women and men are paying a terrible price for their brave acts of dissent. Many have been detained, arrested, thrown in prison, and subjected to torture by regimes that fail to understand that their habits of control will not serve them well in the long-term. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

 

[The Painter]

IMO Only Bush committed an impeachable offense or offenses.

50 votes for this. This proves 50 of you are idiots. If this were true, Clinton would not have been impeached, and he was. That means this statement is absolutely false, yet 50 of you voted for it. Unbelievable.

 

[gnome]

50 votes for this. This proves 50 of you are idiots. If this were true, Clinton would not have been impeached, and he was. That means this statement is absolutely false, yet 50 of you voted for it. Unbelievable.

I suspect you didn't understand the question. It's not a history test, we all know impeachment proceedings were brought. The question (as I understand it) was whether the offenses meet the respondant's standard for what they think a president OUGHT to be impeached for.

 

[ambrose]

What options were there other than going to war with Iraq?

Um, not going to war with Iraq?

 

[gnome]

Um, not going to war with Iraq?

Or, postponing it and going after terrorists in other countries while we still had most of our allies with us?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I suspect you didn't understand the question. It's not a history test, we all know impeachment proceedings were brought. The question (as I understand it) was whether the offenses meet the respondant's standard for what they think a president OUGHT to be impeached for.

Yes, I tried to make it clear, I want to know what the thread participant's personal opinion is, not someone's interpretation of the legal issues though that may impact some people's personal definitions. Even were it a question of legal criteria being met, just because a prosecution has not yet been initiated or completed doesn't mean the offense has not been committed.