It's not especially insightful, but one paragraph did jump out at me:
Here are two matters for consideration. If Democrats win, the incoming Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers (D-MI), has said he wants to impeach both President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney. I have my differences with President Bush but do we really want our President dragged through an impeachment process in front of the world when we have a worldwide enemy, Islamofascists, whose devotion is to death? Will the impeachment of our President help us defeat this deadly enemy?
Um, yeah, it will.
You only have to accept the colossal incompetence of the current administration to come to that conclusion. Almost every decision this president makes spurs on terrorists. Think that allowing torture's making us any friends? How about blowing the living crap out of Iraq -- for pretty much no good reason? How about a bullying foreign policy -- does that win us any allies? It's hard to figure how having two completely insane executives is helpful in fighting terrorism.
Would Bush/Cheney be impeached? If there's any kind of investigation at all, it's hard to see how they wouldn't be. There's just too much in this White House that's obviously criminal. If lying us into a war isn't enough, there's corruption in the form of Jack Abramoff. If that's not enough, there's election fraud. Still not enough? Katrina. And don't forget the massive incompetence that led to 9/11. This administration's record is one of lies, fraud, and disaster. How could removing them not help us fight terrorism?
To fight terrorism, we need to address the root causes of terrorism. And one of those causes is that the US acts like a dick. Does anyone really believe that Bush or Cheney will decide to stop being jerks any time soon?
I've come up with a term to describe the Bush/Cheney brand of conservatism -- Hardass About Everything. I actually came up with that a few years ago to describe talk radio programmed robots on online forums. For them, there is no problem that can't be solved by being a bigger jerk than you are now. If Iraqis are unhappy that we're killing them, for example, the HAE solution is to kill more of them. Punishment solves every problem and the military is the only arm of government worth a damn.
Bush is often accused of being power mad. That's not actually true -- he just doesn't know any better. Bush and company just have about the worst case of HAE in american history. It's an extremely limiting mindset. Punishment is the only tool in their toolbox. That's why they came up with torture as an american policy -- they are unable to see any alternative. They fail to see that the way to end their 'war on terror' is to stop making terrorists. And the reason they fail to see this is because that would mean they'd have to stop being dicks. In the mind of an HAE sufferer, this is unacceptable.
So removing the president and vice president from office would help the war on terror immeasurably. Having a couple of inflexible jerks in office is helpful in what way? Why is it surprising to learn that being an ass earns you enemies? This became obvious last year, according to the State Dept.
The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.
Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.
Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total -- a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer.
In what insane version of reality does increased terrorism constitute success in fighting terrorism? All the evidence shows that the Bush administration sucks at this stuff. How on Earth can you argue that removing people who are doing a lousy job wouldn't be helpful?
There may be good reasons why impeachment wouldn't be a good idea -- although, frankly, I can't think of one. But the argument that it would hurt the fight against terrorism isn't one of them.
Technorati tags: politics; war; military; elections; Republicans; one of the best things we could do for the 'war on terrorism' would be to impeach Bush and Cheney