Sep 08 2006
National Security Verses Impeachment II
This election for the far left is all about vengeance. Not vengeance for 9-11, but vengeance for 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004.
The first and most obvious means is through the impeachment process. As a Cabinet secretary, Rumsfeld may be impeached and removed from office under Article 2 of the Constitution for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.” Rumsfeld’s critics charge him with a long list of what they say are impeachable offenses, including incompetence and ordering the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other military detention centers.
…
Before Rumsfeld could be impeached and removed from office in connection with Abu Ghraib or, say, because of the authorized use of torture by Americans or the use of domestic wiretapping, the same rule would apply: He would have to be shown not just to have abused his power but to have done so maliciously. Demonstrating malice would require showing that he knew what the law required and that he deliberately disregarded it. That’s a high bar.
In any case, political circumstances make impeaching, much less removing, Rumsfeld from office nearly impossible at the moment. With the House controlled by the Republicans, it is extremely unlikely — even with anger against Rumsfeld rising — that the chamber would even entertain an impeachment inquiry against the Defense secretary. Without an impeachment by the House, the Senate would not be able to conduct an impeachment trial.
The self absorbed liberal left, incapable of functioning in the minority, incapable of professional mature recourse, have made this election the case for war on the GOP. They want impeachment over national security. People who try and discuss this as if it is a reasonable, normal matter are frightenly disengaged from reality. The BDS is strong with this one. While Bush and Co. have worked miracles in identifying and stopping numerous attempted attacks on this country and our allies, the democrats are ready to give up our war on Al Qaeda and get to the business of war on their adversaries, the evil Republicans:
Addendum: To further illustrate the difference between the Bush focus and the Left’s focus one only need to review what Bush has publicized regarding the war on terror:
And what did we learn from the CIA program? A lot, apparently. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah, captured after he was wounded in a firefight in Pakistan, revealed information such as KSM’s alias (“Muktar”), which helped lead to the 9/11 ringleader’s arrest. Zubaydah also identified Ramzi bin al Shibh as one of KSM’s accomplices and provided information leading to his arrest too.
KSM, for his part, led U.S. intelligence to a Southeast Asian terrorist leader named Hambali, whose organization was responsible for the 2002 Bali bombing. After his brother was also arrested and a cell of 17 operatives broken up, Hambali confessed he had been acting on KSM’s orders to plan another attack on the U.S. KSM also led U.S. intelligence to al Qaeda operatives responsible for a program to develop biological weapons such as anthrax.
In all, it appears a substantial number of plots were foiled because of the CIA interrogation program. They included attacks not only in the U.S. but on targets such as a U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti and the U.S. consulate in Karachi. Mr. Bush said that information from the program played a role in the arrest of “nearly every” senior al Qaeda member in U.S. custody. These detainees have proven invaluable to our general understanding of their organization and have helped the U.S. decipher captured documents and computer records and identified voices on recorded calls.
You review this track record and compare it to the wishes and plans expressed above and any sane person without a death wish for themselves and their family knows immediately what the stakes are. If the left thinks Iraq was taking our eyes off the ball, what do they think impeaching Rumsfelf and Bush is?
Is anyone suprised the dems are for an early pullout.
After all it like an abortion without the hassle of a doctor visit.
Go figgure!
“You review this track record and compare it to the wishes and plans expressed above and any sane person without a death wish for themselves and their family knows immediately what the stakes are.”
This perfectly true, however, unless one reads the news from a source other than the MSM there is nothing to make a comparison to. As time goes by I realize that the MSM is a much more dangerous entity to the security of the country, not only by providing continuosly biased “reporting” but more importantly by denying to the public the availability of the actual facts.
Luc
Also you have to factor in they are also the source for many of our “informed electorate”.
They have freedom of speech but is not granted without responsibility!
http://www.juancole.com/2006/09/bush-abu-zubayda-and-end-of-trust-bush.html
brings in question much of the above cited Bush claims about Abu
Zubadya.
“Rumsfeld’s critics charge him with a long list of what they say are impeachable offenses, including incompetence and ordering the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other military detention centers.”
Am I the only guy that likes Rumsfeld? I was shocked when I first saw this guy on television and continued to be shocked ever since. He is great. He is completely a straight shooter.
Ever since all I have heard about is how wicked he is. Granted, they say everyone is wicked in the Administration. They make racist slurs at Condi. It offends their sense of herd mentality.
I think they are slanderers. Rabid slanderers. They love it. They want to justify their murderous hatred so they come up with false charges.
Why they hate these people… herd mentality and because they are good.
MerlinOS2,
That is exactly what I meant by saying that the MSM denies the public accurate information. Their “garbage” news feels the information channles so, except for peole like us who use the internet for gathering information- and don’t forget we are really a minority of the population-, the majority are making their decisins based on MSM “information” because there is no other information for them. That is the danger!
On Ken’s post:
That article is largely very poorly done.
The author starts out with a statement he knows his target audience will love: “Bush… lied”.
From there he relies primarily on the work of a single author, Ron Suskind. A search on him reveals his claim to fame is from winning the Pulitzer Prize for covering the journey of a kid’s raise from Washington DC to Brown University. He calls the kid a “prickly, religious honor student”.
Real cutting edge stuff.
From there he went into becoming an axe man for the Democrats.
Maybe he isn’t biased. Maybe he just only likes to write on Republicans because he loves them so much.
Suskind, apparently, has an anonymous source high in the CIA or FBI who was able to tell him all about the classified information a terrorist source gave the government. So, Suskind’s word against Bush’s. But not really. You see, Suskind is here assuming his anonymous source is good, has no axe to grind with the government, is non-partisan, and actually knew everything he thought he knew about this source.
We don’t know that. We don’t even know who the source is.
The author then uses “another” source. This time it is a FBI agent calling the source in question “crazy”. I look up the quote and find it from a Washington Post review of… Suskind’s book.
The author did not cite his source.
Then, the author claims the government tortured this same source by refusing him pain killers. His article does not note that we did fix him, nor did it note that pain killers were unlikely initially refused to him because they wanted to hurt the man… but because he might not survive the operation and once he had the pain killers he would be unable to talk.
Which is very obvious.