home
What John Yoo Says | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Praise the lord and pass the hallucinogens (none / 0) (#13)
by weldon berger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:21:19 PM EST
I'm a supporter of impeaching Bush and Cheney, and have been for several years. The reason I support it is that they have committed serious crimes -- and have acknowledged some of them publicly -- and the remedy for a criminal president and vice president is impeachment. It's in the Constitution, just as Congress's power of the purse is. Yet somehow, in your view, impeachment is idiocy. I don't get that.

I have to admit that I doubt the Democratic resolve to defund the war, precisely because, as Yoo said, they could do so if they really wanted to. Can you point to any indication that anywhere near a sufficient majority of Democrats really want to? Certainly that's not the case in the Senate, and it's very doubtful in the House. And as the procedural contortions by the Democratic leadership in the House on the last supplemental demonstrate, the hesitancy begins at the top.

Regardless, those two tacks, impeachment and defunding, are not mutually exclusive.  To me, your reaction seems every bit the knee-jerk one you ascribe to impeachment supporters.

Not knee jerk. (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:29:59 PM EST
Acknowledgment of political reality.

[ Parent ]
Political reality isn't immutable (none / 0) (#17)
by weldon berger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:52:14 PM EST
The most damaging aspect of this reflexive attitude toward impeachment is that if the climate does change, Democrats who categorically reject the process now have painted themselves into a corner for the future. Are you really willing to bet that nothing which would otherwise compel impeachment will come to light between now and the end of Bush's term? Do you really trust future presidents, Democrats included, to reject the precedents et by administration's executive excesses once they're in the position to find those excesses attractive?

One can argue the political difficulties, but the notion that people who think the rule of law is a principle worth defending, through a legitimate Constitutional process, are idiots for adhering to it, is offensive to me. For whatever that's worth.

[ Parent ]

No one is :categorically: (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:00:51 PM EST
rejecting it except in the current political reality. If the votes were there it would be a done deal.

Did you even read what I linked you to? It appears not.

[ Parent ]

Oh, stuff and nonsense. (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by weldon berger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:34:54 PM EST
I read your comment; I just don't find it remotely compelling.

When someone says "impeachment is off the table," that's a categorical rejection of it. That means not only that they'll invest no effort in creating a new political reality, but that they'll actively discourage anyone else from trying to do so, which I would think you'd have to admit is exactly what's going on here. It also means that should something come down the pike which stirs public demand for impeachment, congressional Democrats will face a choice of actively resisting it or of seeming to support it based solely upon political necessity, which will once again reinforce the perception of Democrats as a principle-free party, something which is not in our best long-term interests.

But whatever. I can live with being thought an idiot.

[ Parent ]

Off The Table (none / 0) (#23)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:42:42 PM EST
Is the same as on the table for a disciplined political pragmatist.

Imeachment is just not going to happen despite all the rhetoric on both sides. Because it cannot be done before Nov 2008, and would fail anyway.

Feingold has it right, it is just not what some people want to hear.

[ Parent ]

Up is the same as down (1.00 / 1) (#25)
by weldon berger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:52:57 PM EST
for a disciplined political pragmatist. War is peace. Day is night.

[ Parent ]
Rigjht (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:59:46 PM EST
Because even when it is on the table, for a disciplined political pragmatist impeachment is only political swaggering, but as a reality it is never going to happen.

The next election is not that far away.

[ Parent ]

A disciplined political pragmatist (none / 0) (#30)
by weldon berger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:37:03 PM EST
wouldn't actually commit to an absolute rejection of impeachment. What you're describing is a disciplined political opportunist -- someone willing to stake out a position for political gain, or in this instance a misplaced perception of political gain, and then abandon it as circumstances change.

[ Parent ]
No one (none / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:10:35 PM EST
thinks you are an idiot for thinking the rule of law is a principle worth defending.

But it is a waste of time for anyone to knowingly pursue something that they know cannot succeed, when the time and energy can be better expended towards something that can.

[ Parent ]

Couple things: (1.00 / 1) (#24)
by weldon berger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:50:33 PM EST
Some fights are worth losing. What you're saying, basically, is that I'm not an idiot for thinking the rule of law is worth defending, but only for wanting to actually defend it.

That aside, congressional Democrats have performed woefully since Bush was elected, including in the months before 911. I see little evidence that they're all that much sharper on the strategic front now than they have been while they were in the minority. (For that matter, I see little evidence that anyone at Talk Left is all that enthralled with the Democratic strategic vision other than on this one issue.) I question the validity of the diagnosis.

I have to run, and I expect we've pretty much plumbed the depths of this one anyway. Thanks for the conversation and the courtesy.

Cheers,
Weldon

[ Parent ]

Now it really l.ooks like you're used to it. (none / 0) (#28)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:03:33 PM EST
What I said is what I said. What I meant is what I said.

What you try to turn what I said into has no relation to my words or my meaning.

[ Parent ]

Some fights are (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:54:26 PM EST
worth winning.

Ending the Debacle is one.

[ Parent ]

They aren't mutually exclusive. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by weldon berger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:52:07 PM EST
At the very least, Democrats would benefit electorally from explicitly identifying the crimes committed by the executive branch and hammering home the point that they are impeachable by any rational measure, which I think is something we agree upon, and that it is only the Republican tolerance for lawbreaking that prevents impeachment and conviction. There's no reason to think that the two efforts would detract from one another, and I think it's  likely they would do quite the opposite.

[ Parent ]

What John Yoo Says | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft