1

Take, for example, the case of Ronald Reagan. In 1983 Democratic Congressman John Conyers said that President Reagan should be impeached for failing to deal with joblessness and for “incompetence.”

Some of us remember El Salvador, the School of the Americas, and Iran-Contra, not to mention the EPA scandal, the HUD scandal, Wedtech, and numerous other defense scandals.

Conyers wasn't unhinged to suggest impeachment for "incompetence" when he was dealing with a man who was visibly showing the signs of Alzheimers, as I witnessed myself from the small screen at the time, and said so to friends.

In fact, I'd submit it's "unhinged" to support such people.

2

"Conyers wasn't unhinged to suggest impeachment for "incompetence" when he was dealing with a man who was visibly showing the signs of Alzheimers, as I witnessed myself from the small screen at the time, and said so to friends."

Maybe you and Conyers should read the Constitution occasionally. The remedy for removing a President who is unable to execute the duties of the Presidency is not impeachment, the 25th amendment deals with the issue. Also, while it is arguable that Reagan was showing early symptoms of Alzheimer's in 1987 or 1988, he certainly was not in 1983, unless you count disagreeing with you as an early symptom. Impeachment is reserved for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which doesn't include trying to resolve economic problems caused by his predessesors' (not just Carter) failed policies.

Some of us remember El Salvador, the School of the Americas, and Iran-Contra, not to mention the EPA scandal, the HUD scandal, Wedtech, and numerous other defense scandals.

Yes, some of us do remember Reagan's attempts to keep Soviet communism for establishing footholds in Central and South America, his rebuilding of our military, and his trying to reach out to "moderate Muslims" in Iran. Hey, isn't that what your side is advocating now vis-a-vis Iran?

3

ucfengr:
..., unless you count disagreeing with you as an early symptom.

Mumon:
In fact, I'd submit it's "unhinged" to support such people.

Well, actually he does believe you're mentally unhinged already. So, yes, I would say that disagreeing with Mumon, but Mumon's standards, would be considered a form of mental illness. :-)

4

Most Americans hear talk of impeaching Bush and simply shrug it off as coming from the same lunatic fringe that calls the President “ChimpyMcHitler” and considers him to be the “Worst.President.Ever.” So when the rabid gurgle starts coming from their own state legislatures it leads them to realize that in a Venn diagram of the Democratic Party, there is a significant overlap between the categories of loons and legislators.

Would that 'most Americans' set be part of the 30% approval rating Bush currently has?

Most Americans hear talk of impeaching Bush and simply shrug it off as coming from the same lunatic fringe that calls the President “ChimpyMcHitler” and considers him to be the “Worst.President.Ever.”

Can you imagine Republicans having to put together a resume and try to get a regular job? "Tell me what you're strengths are?" "Well, it would be offensive to compare me to Hitler and I can say only a lunatic would consider me the worst ever. If you hire me I can guarantee you there will be at least one other employee that you could fairly consider to be worse than me! Yes sir, my motto is 'I'm not quite the bottom of the barrell!' "

ucfengr
Yes, some of us do remember Reagan's attempts to keep Soviet communism for establishing footholds in Central and South America, his rebuilding of our military, and his trying to reach out to "moderate Muslims" in Iran. Hey, isn't that what your side is advocating now vis-a-vis Iran

Now come on, I was with you when you were saying impeachment is not for charges of 'incompetence' but give us a break. What a reading of the Iran-Contra scandal....must you drink whatever kool-aid they serve you?

5

What a reading of the Iran-Contra scandal....must you drink whatever kool-aid they serve you?

While we can argue about the wisdom of Reagan's policies with respect to Iran and the Contras I don't think we can argue the motives, which were to stem Soviet/Cuban influence in Central America (not an insignificant problem in the early 80's)and to try to encourage a more moderate regime in Iran.

6

The problem is that the Constitution is quite clear that only Congress may spend gov't money (subject to the signing/veto power of the President). Whether or not funding the contras was a good idea Reagan had no right to do an end run around Congress (especially after Congress had explicitly rejected any additional funding of the contras).

You're right, we can argue the wisdom of the Reagan administration appeasing and even indirectly supporting anti-American terrorist regimes. This would include refusing even to entertain sanctions against Saddam's Iraq after his war crimes in the use of weapons of mass destruction against his own people as well as supplying Iran with anti-aircraft missiles that could easily be used (and still could show up) for terrorist purposes.

I'll save that in my back pocket next time someone tells us how 'Clinton did nothing' about terrorism.

7

The problem is that the Constitution is quite clear that only Congress may spend gov't money (subject to the signing/veto power of the President). Whether or not funding the contras was a good idea Reagan had no right to do an end run around Congress (especially after Congress had explicitly rejected any additional funding of the contras).

Actually Congress only authorizes the spending of the money, they don't actually spend it. The executive branch does most of the spending. With respect to Congress rejecting additional funding of the Contras (through the Bolan ammendment if I recall), I do remember there being some arguments about whether or not Congress had the Constitutional authority to do this, but since this was pre-net, I haven't found any specific cites.

You're right, we can argue the wisdom of the Reagan administration appeasing and even indirectly supporting anti-American terrorist regimes. This would include refusing even to entertain sanctions against Saddam's Iraq after his war crimes in the use of weapons of mass destruction against his own people as well as supplying Iran with anti-aircraft missiles that could easily be used (and still could show up) for terrorist purposes.

I doubt that any weapons we supplied to Iran are still much of a threat. I remember reading some reports on the status of the F-14 Tomcats we sold the Shah back in the 70's and it wasn't good. In retrospect, we probably erred in our early dealings with Saddam's Iraq, but in the context of the 1980s, when we were dealing with an expansionist world power in the Soviet Union and expansionist regional power in Iran, it probably seemed the lesser of several evils.

8

I doubt that any weapons we supplied to Iran are still much of a threat. I remember reading some reports on the status of the F-14 Tomcats we sold the Shah back in the 70's and it wasn't good. In retrospect, we probably erred in our early dealings with Saddam's Iraq, but in the context of the 1980s, when we were dealing with an expansionist world power in the Soviet Union and expansionist regional power in Iran, it probably seemed the lesser of several evils.

I believe the weapons in the Iran-contra deal was at least 100 TOW missiles and while they didn't give Iran a clear victory in the war they made a signficiant difference. I imagine they would be potent weapons for terrorists even though their primary purpose is as an anti-tank weapon. I imagine they would work against a large, undefended target such as a 747 taking off. I'll grant your point...as far as a terrorist weapon goes Iran has enough resources on its own to construct or purchase weapons of similiar quality if it wanted to supply a terrorist organization.

Interesting wikipedia has some interesting info on Iran-contra:

The Reagan Administration calculated that by selling arms to Iran, that nation would influence the Hezbollah kidnappers in Lebanon to release their hostages. Iran was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War and could find few nations willing to supply it with weapons. However, the arms shipments began before the first hostage was taken, and ended a long time after the last hostage was released. Selling these arms generated large amounts of cash. Since Congress had not authorized this activity, disposing of the cash led to the second half of the plan.

I always thought the plan started solely as a misguided 'arms for hostages' policy. It sounds like it was really just a blunt 'let's sell arms to the terrorist nation to get cash to give to our buddies 'cause Congress isn't going along with the policies we want'.

Impeachable? Most certainly as was the attempted coverup after the fact. There is no 'duty to impeach' in the Constitution, however, so I'm not going to say Congress should have impeached Reagan or anyone else for Iran-contra but I don't think it is fair to call those who called for such a thing wackos.

9

Would that 'most Americans' set be part of the 30% approval rating Bush currently has?

This assumes that everyone who disapproves of Bush is automatically a Democrat or would likely vote Democrat. In fact, a large number of people who are presently giving a thumbs-down to Bush are Republicans and Independents who disapprove of runaway gov't spending and other non-Republican priorities. The Dems make the mistake of thinking these people will automatically vote for them, but Joe is right: all the Republicans have to do is quote Howard Dean now and then and show the foaming-at-the-mouth Angry Left to show people that they vote for the Dems at their peril.

10

So again the strategy is 'we are not the bottom of the barrel'. You guys have sure come a long way since 'Morning in America'. BTW, who was running Congress AND the White House during that period of 'runaway gov't spending'?

11

I believe the weapons in the Iran-contra deal was at least 100 TOW missiles and while they didn't give Iran a clear victory in the war they made a signficiant difference. I imagine they would be potent weapons for terrorists even though their primary purpose is as an anti-tank weapon. I imagine they would work against a large, undefended target such as a 747 taking off.

I doubt a TOW would be very effective against any aircraft, even something big and slow, like a 747, unless the aircraft is stationary. The current generation TOW has a range of 3750 meters (about 1.5 miles), so tactically, a terrorist would have to be very close to have a reaonable chance of hitting an aircraft in motion. Even then, the TOW is designed to be targeted against relatively slow moving armored vehicles (top speed 50-60mph), not against fast moving aircraft (747 take-off speed is 180 mph), so it might not be responsive enough to effectively target a fixed wing aircraft, maybe a helicopter, though.

12

How about on a 747 that had just landed but not yet had its passengers depart? How about if it was fired into the side of a large oil storage tank? Or into a building? It sounds like it would be a good weapon to use to target something like a capital building which may be easy to get within a mile of but impossible to get a car bomb close enough to in order to do serious damage.

13

Also speed is relative. If you were positioned at the end of the runway the plane taking off would be approaching you, not leaving you, at 180 mph. The impact alone might be sufficient to bring it down. Of course if this is the goal I understand Afghanistan is littered with old ground to air missiles that would be perfect for that sort of thing.

My sister was stationed in Saudi Arabia before the Iraq war. She told me that approaching the air base the planes would fly as high as possible until the last possible moment when they would plunge downward as steeply as they could manage without crashing. The reason was because of fears that some Al Qaeda group might hang out in the desert around the base and try to take out the transport planes as they came in.

14

The TOWs weren't the problem; the shoulder launched missles were.

tom:

Polling of self-described independents- the real ones, not the media astroturfed O'Reillys and Michael Reagans- show support for Democratic positions - and candidates.

Christ Lutz:

Joe Carter - and I guess you- don't realize you're in the minority right now.

And for good reason.

ucfengr:

Guatemala was a genocide perpetuated by a right-wing madman. Who claimed to be an Evangelical.

El Salvador: most atrocities were committed by right wing death squads, according to indpendent analysts. Oscar Romero.

Nicaragua? Same deal.

And who can forget that Reagan made al Qaeda what it is today?

Also, while it is arguable that Reagan was showing early symptoms of Alzheimer's in 1987 or 1988, he certainly was not in 1983,...

Ah, euphoric recall. No, I'd say even back then he was. He didn't exactly have much of an attention span by then.

I also forgot to mention the October Surprise - well documented and widely known about outside the US. A demonstrably impeachable offense.

15

How about on a 747 that had just landed but not yet had its passengers depart? How about if it was fired into the side of a large oil storage tank? Or into a building? It sounds like it would be a good weapon to use to target something like a capital building which may be easy to get within a mile of but impossible to get a car bomb close enough to in order to do serious damage.

The TOW would not be a very good choice to accomplish any of these tasks, especially if you are firing from the ground. The problem is that the TOW is wire guided, so it requires a fairly clear field of fire. Lots of obstacles between the missile and the target tend to foul or even cut the wire, making it impossible to guide. You are not likely to have a nice clear field of fire in a typical American city (lots of other buildings) or near an airport (lots of security fences and other obstacles).

If you were positioned at the end of the runway the plane taking off would be approaching you, not leaving you, at 180 mph.

Getting close to the end of a runway is not an easy task, they tend to have a fair amount of security to prevent just that sort of action. Even so, WRT a TOW missile, you are still trying to target an object moving 180mph with a weapon that is designed to target objects moving at less than a third that speed.

My sister was stationed in Saudi Arabia before the Iraq war. She told me that approaching the air base the planes would fly as high as possible until the last possible moment when they would plunge downward as steeply as they could manage without crashing. The reason was because of fears that some Al Qaeda group might hang out in the desert around the base and try to take out the transport planes as they came in.

I doubt they where worried about being taken out by TOW anti-tank missiles, probably more along the lines of a Soviet SA-7 or American Stinger.

Anyhow, we've strayed a fair piece off topic, haven't we?

16

Ah, euphoric recall. No, I'd say even back then he was. He didn't exactly have much of an attention span by then.

I didn't realize you two were so close. Did he often drift off during your conversations? I must say I am not surprised, it's very rare that you have anything new or interesting to say. I'm sorry, what were we discussing...

I also forgot to mention the October Surprise - well documented and widely known about outside the US. A demonstrably impeachable offense.

Ahh, if only you could prove it. Any other conspiracies theories you want to discuss? How about how the CIA worked with the Mafia to kill Kennedy in retaliation for the Bay of Pigs fiasco? Here's a potentially interesting topic, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, fact or fiction?

17

It's funny that when it comes to foreign leaders, they are somehow personally responsible for all of the sins that their underlings commit and we are justified for invading their countries and prosecuting the guy in charge, but when it comes to the US, the president is somehow excused for all the crimes that his branch of government commits.
Democrats and Republicans alike have presided over some pretty bad stuff.
And the sheeple are lead to believe that threats to our freedom come from the likes of Osama, when it's our own govt agents that are taking away our freedoms under the guise of providing "security".

This attitude, that since Bush is a Republican and CLAIMS to be a Christian we should dismiss or justify his UNCHRISTIAN actions, destroys our credibiblity as Christians in this society and only serves to make us appear as hypocrits that are only after power and money.

As a Christian, government is not the answer to society's problems. Historically, government is the cause of many of society's problems.

Raising questions about Bush's leadership, especially when he appears to be untruthful about so many things, should be welcomed by all. Instead, political power is more valuable than truth.

18

"When Democratic legislators start talking like this the reaction of Republican strategists should be clear: Get them a megaphone."

Yes!! Get Boonton and Mumon a megaphone, too.

That's part of the problem with blogs. We argue with posters like Boonton, Mumon, Mike, etc. because we can't stand it that people actually think like this. Every time I respond to these guys, (though I never respond to Mumon) my remarks could always be prefaced by: "Remember, these guys think Clinton was a decent man."

"So when the rabid gurgle starts coming from their own state legislatures it leads them to realize that in a Venn diagram of the Democratic Party, there is a significant overlap between the categories of loons and legislators."

There is also significant overlap with the aforementioned categories and leftwing posters on blogs.

19

jd:

Clinton had a brain-damaged guy executed to get a bump in the polls.

Bush invaded Iraq on a lie, and in so doing compromised the security of the United States.

Clinton was no saint, but Bush is undeniably worse, except to those who won't countenance dissent.

20

Republicans have said and done many similar or the same things in the past.

Your post accomplishes nothing but prove that politicians are stupid jackasses. And lets face it, thats not exactly a difficult goal to meet.

21

Polling of self-described independents- the real ones, not the media astroturfed O'Reillys and Michael Reagans- show support for Democratic positions - and candidates.

No, not really. Democratic positions always poll well because they promise something for everyone and no pain in getting it, but when you match a specific candidate against another specific candidate, the lines tend to fall pretty much as the elections have gone over the past 15 or so years.

Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. If he lived today, he'd probably add political polling.

22

Polling of self-described independents- the real ones, not the media astroturfed O'Reillys and Michael Reagans- show support for Democratic positions - and candidates.

No, not really. Democratic positions always poll well because they promise something for everyone and no pain in getting it, but when you match a specific candidate against another specific candidate, the lines tend to fall pretty much as the elections have gone over the past 15 or so years.

Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. If he lived today, he'd probably add political polling.

23

That's part of the problem with blogs. We argue with posters like Boonton, Mumon, Mike, etc. because we can't stand it that people actually think like this.

Naaa you just can't stand that I'm smarter than you and have more wit. Release your anger young jd! Only your hate can destroy me!!!!

No, not really. Democratic positions always poll well because they promise something for everyone and no pain in getting it

Quick, name the Republican positions that promise something and include the pain in getting it? In WWII people were asked to do without nylon and to recycle cans for the war effort. We were told after 9/11 to go to the mall 'for the sake of the economy'. We were told when Bush was running that the economy was so good that we should have tax cuts. We were told after that the economy was so bad we should have tax cuts. We are told now we need tax cuts to keep the economy going at all. This is all well and good but where exactly is this pain we keep hearing about?

24

Face it Joe. In terms of being like a bull in the china shop, Bush has the rest of the Presidents put to shame. The man is not principled, he's just a stubborn SOB who can't admit he's wrong. Ironically, he can't admit he's wrong on an issue, immigration, that his base feels VERY strongly about and is at odds with him. He doesn't even care if he tears down the Republicans in the next election cycles because Dubya don't give into no terrorists... you know like them thar American people who want the borders secure and the immigrants deported en masse.

25

I suspect that most Democrats have memories that extend back to 1998, and understand how politically damaging the attempt to impeach a president can be to the president's opposition. It doesn't really matter whether a president has done things that might warrant impeachment, or even that his approval ratings are low (impeachment actually improved Clinton's approval ratings).

26

True to a degree Chris. Most people viewed the Clintin impeachment as less a principled fight against corruption and more of a politically charged game of 'gotcha'. It certainly didn't help when notable Republicans started getting outed for their own affairs, such as when the ex-husband of Henry Hydes current wife stepped forward to attack him for destroying his marriage by having an affair with his wife or when Gingrich's divorce revealed that he had been conducting his own little affair with a staffer.

I don't think you could say that the near impeachment of Nixon helped Republicans. In general I think a justified impeachment movement is devastating for the President and his party. The biggest problem that pro-impeachment forces have is that there is a big difference between simply being a bad President and one that merits impeachment. Impeachment is indeed reserved for 'high crimes and misdeamenors'....not as a tool to express a vote of no confidence. Democrats that want to try impeachment will have a difficult time showing how the President is not simply bad but has actually crossed a line.

27

Boonton:
"Naaa you just can't stand that I'm smarter than you and have more wit. Release your anger young jd! Only your hate can destroy me!!!!"

hahaaha that made me laugh =) but uh... it seems like our economy's doing great right now...
otherwise, your understanding of impeachment is right.

28

Boonton writes;

Quick, name the Republican positions that promise something and include the pain in getting it?

Promise: We will liberate Iraq from an evil dictatorship.

Pain: Blood and Treasure to obtain that goal.

29

Supporting tyrants who murdered thousands in terrorism campaigns in Central America is a sad legacy for the U.S. -- how terrorism was supposed to keep the Soviets out of Guatemala never was fully explained, nor could it be. Remember, this Reagan administration was the same one that was, at that time, training Osama bin Laden in terrorism.

God help us if conservatives cannot learn from such errors, for there is little other hope.

30

ucfenger, ther was a special prosecutor appointed to look into the funding of the Contras. It was illegal, and Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter were convicted in court for violating the law. There is no question that the actions were violations of the law.

The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, did not bring charges against Reagan himself only because Reagan was, by that time, non compos mentis enough that he could not have been brought to trial.

Conyers and others were right. Reagan should have been impeached. The courts agreed.

Perhaps we would be wise to listen to those people now, considering how badly the Iran/Contra thing turned out in Iran, in Nciaragua, and in Afghanistan. Reagan's policies smashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and we can only wonder what would have been had they obeyed the law, instead.

31

I would say that constitutionally, both the president and the congress should be impeached. By not closing the borders after 9-11, they have failed in their duties to provide for the common defence. The Constitution charges the Congress with forming a Militia (National Guard?) and sending it to "repel invasion". The President is to be their Commander-in-Chief. I would be shocked if terrorists are not yet in the country and if a terrible disaster strikes it will be too late to impeach anyone. And I realize that Congress isn't going to impeach Bush and he isn't going to call them out for not sending the Guard to the borders. Democrats and Republicans alike are looking for future potential voters and Republicans are looking for cheap labor. We are in great danger...