.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Impeach Bush? Would The Left Impeach Kennedy and Johnson For Viet Nam?

(I have about one more hour of power before the electricity goes off again - thanks Wilma)

I have visited a lot of leftie sites that are calling for W to be impeached. And I have really tried to be open minded to understand the rationale for this assertion. My goal was to try and find any substantiation, legal or otherwise. I have read their claims of calling W a war criminal and some of these sites state that W needs to be executed (Brad's Brain), which is treason isn't it since we are at war? (Do a Google Search on 'Impeach Bush' and look at some of the stuff that is out there - it's pretty funny, if not sad. And the petitions that are going around are worth a pretty good chuckle)

I have put the question in the title of this post to the owners of many leftist sites. And I have gotten nothing in the way of a response. I'm not surprised. Johnson and Kennedy are both Dems, and of course, no Democrat can ever be held up to the same standards of the impeachment cry that W is battered with today. Kennedy got the US involved in SE Asia, and rightly so. But Johnson escalated our involvement steadily and had our troops in this theatre for over ten years without a formal declaration of war with the North. So would today's Oprah-Namby Lefties applying the same weak-kneed, pacifist, anti-American crud against Kennedy and Johnson call for their impeachment if they were in power today, let alone execution like Brad's Brain and his sycophant followers? I bet not. Certainly the VN War was far worse in terms of lives lost, cost in GDP, our ability to prosecute our interests for at least ten years after the war was over due to the cuts in our military spending, not to mention the loss of credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world when we finally did pull out of VN which is so important to the lefties of today? I don't think that today's lefties have the same guts that those in 60s and 70s did when they rallied incessantly for an end to the VN War. But it's ok for the left to call for W's head, he's a Republican. If Johnson was President today, would the left call for his impeachment if he prosecuted a war against the peace loving Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan? Nope. Cowards!

Comments:
"The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was an alleged attack on two American destroyers in August of 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin by North Vietnamese gunboats. Later research indicates that the attacks did not actually occur.

According to the Pentagon Papers and various researchers, the attacks were virtually fabricated by President Lyndon B. Johnson's administration."

Lyndon lied to get us involved in that war. He should have been impeached.

There's your answer.
 
Not only should Johnson have been impeached, but this liberal says that Clinton should have stepped down. I don't think there should have been an impeachment (just barely do I think that) but I DO think he should have stepped down and called for him to do so.

So, now will you join me in calling for Bush's impeachment?
 
In the immortal words of Gene Autry, 'Nope'
 
So, do YOU think Johnson should have been impeached? If so, on what grounds?

If it's on the grounds that he waged war on a sovreign nation based upon lies, then you know why I would have impeached both Johnson and Bush and why millions around the world and in this country feel Bush to be a larger threat to world security than Saddam.
 
No Danny, I do not think Johnson should have been impeached. While I think that Viet Nam was poorly handled at all levels of his administration and the the Pentagon, I do not think he should have been impeached. Nor do I think W should be impeached. The cries of war crimes about W are patently stupid on their face and the non-sensical petitions on the internet I have read are laughable. My point was that the lefties today would not go after Johsnon since he is a Democrat just like they did not go after Clinton for, to use the words of the left, 'invading' Haitai and the Balkans. There was no Cindy Sheehan calling for the impeachment of Clinton when he bombed empty buildings in Iraq or the asprin factory in Africa. The left does not have the guts to apply it's standard of impeachment to Johsnon and Kennedy, let alone Clinton (which I would not have called for either). It's relativism on stilts. That's the point.
 
But I and my friends are what you define as leftists and we would've supported impeaching Johnson (I was a wee bit too young), we DID oppose Clinton's actions.

So while the Dems in power may be political relativists, progressives are not. As far as most of my progressive friends are concerned, the Dems are a part of the problem...they're just not as large a part of the problem as the Republicans.

And that's MY point.
 
I think that there is clearly a stronger case for impeachment to be made against Johnson than Kennedy. And I would have no problem protesting and seeing Johnson impeached for the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Congress abdicated its Constitutional role to declare war in Vietnam as it did in Iraq. I suppose there is more that I could write about the comparisons to then and now. But what for?

You have asked and answered your own rhetorical questions.
 
Well, douchebag, funny how I actually did respond to it 22 minutes after you posted the "comment". Is lying an trait inherent in "neoconservatives" because you guys sure love it.

As for the "treason" idea, perhaps you should look up the definition. Then you should explain how bombing a sovereign nation which has been proven to do nothing but increase enrollment in a known terrorist group is not "giving aid to our enemies". You should also explain how outing an undercover CIA agent, especially during a "time of war" is not treason. And when you can't explain either, maybe you should realize you have no clue what you're talking about.

Bush will be impeached. Mark my words. The midterm elections are just around the corner and the Republican party is falling apart.
 
You lefties need to remember something-- we have been at war with Saddam since 1991. Read the history of 1998, what transpired during the time the inspectors were booted. Read what Bin Laden was saying about Iraq at the same time.

Johnson should not have been impeached for trying to stop communism anymore than Bush for trying to stop Islamofascism and it's state sponsors.
 
And lying to stop communism/islamofascism is okay in your book? Even if lying to start a war is an act commonly called a "war crime"?

Then the ends DO justify the means, I reckon and as long as you're on what you think to be a noble and just mission, you can do pretty much whatever you want? Including acts of terrorism, I suppose?

Yes, the ends justify the means and we become the enemy. Praise Allah and amen!
 
If we go by your logic, then all of us would still speak the Queen's English, Spanish, or be a North/South divided nation, speak German, or Russian, and now Arabic, and eventually Mandarin Chinese...no matter who or how any of the conflicts of the last 200 years were started. Unbelievable!
 
Yes and thank you for the comment :)
 
Thanks for stopping by!
Glad you're ok!
 
These monkeys have been calling for W's impeachment since 2001.
As the Libby indictment shows, they think being conservative is a criminal act.
 
I suggest your commenters reread the DECLARATION of WAR signed in OCTOBER to go to war with Saddam. I am really getting bored with this.
 
Discussion and vote to go to war. (Sorry, I messed up the first one.)
 
This should provide the actual declaration of war. I hope it works. This is the text version, not the gov't version. lol.
 
The Dems are just lusting for a "gotcha" impeachment because Clinton was convicted in the House and acquitted in the Sentate. They're still stinging from that. And since their messiah was imperfect, how much more so must Bush be? So they're hungering for a way to say "see, your guy is just as bad as our guy was." It's that simple.

Bush didn't lie us into war, unless you wanna say that Democrats in Congress were also in on the lie. The evidence at the time pointed to Saddam having WMDs. Everyone basically agreed on that at the time, and everyone basically agreed on the course of action. Now that things look different, the Dems are taking the politically expedient course of distancing themselves in the midst of a war that is being made unpopular in the media.

And looking for the "gotcha" to help sweep them back into power.
 
Oh the irony of it all! It is most entertaining to read that godless Dems view Clinton as their "imperfect" messiah.

There is definately some unhealthy worship of both Clinton and Bush. And if people want to worship these two men that is their business...I just wish that these folks would remember the seperation that exists between church and state.

As for "everybody" believing Saddam had WMD is not how I remember it. There were reports to the contrary. I remember Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei arguing that Iraq had no WMD.

As it pertains to the abdication of congress to declare war I would direct your attention (Rosemary) to the following information that can be found here and here or here.

From all that I have read the War Powers Resolution would not alter my earlier comments regarding congress having abdicated its constitutional duty to declare war.
 
Social cons have fought many a losing battle this century. From giving women the right to vote, desegregation of the armed services, mixed race marriage, the civil rights act, and many more. They have often cloaked their arguments in christian rhetoric. Partisanship in D.C. is now so strong as to prevent meaning full dialogue or compromise. During the prosecution of World War II their was an active and vocal Republican opposition. That seems to be no longer tolerated and cries of treason are thrown at all who dissent from our current policies Yes ,treason is defined partly as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" but fortunately our founding fathers had the good sense to include THE BILL OF RIGHTS to limit the power of the federal government. Would that all of those rights be as jealously guarded as the right to bear arms.
 
I thought this country was founded by religious nuts with guns!
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home
|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?