- #71
Informal Logic
So everyone admits that there is confusion over what impeachment means, and the confusion is understandable. Why not also admit that most people say it or take it to mean conviction, and admit to the problem of perpetuating this inaccuracy?russ_watters said:Huh? You want to reread that and, perhaps, correct it? Or do you just still not understand that "impeachment" is what the House did and "acquittal" is what the Senate did? They are separate acts: Clinton was both impeached and acquitted. It's just too funny, SOS: you are accusing people of using the word in the factually inaccurate way that you are using it! I know Clinton wasn't convicted. I say he was impeached and I mean he was impeached!
Regarding the current administration - it is against international (and US law) to attack a country without provocation. The claims of WMD were pushing this envelope due to lack of clear and present danger. Then when WMD were not found, there was no question the US had violated these laws. The argument that intelligence was faulty is like arguing you did not see the signal, but you ran the red light and broke the law just the same. And of course the popular method of vindication is to change the laws (e.g., DeLay changing ethics committee rules), thus the sudden embracement of the neocon vision and the Bush Doctrine. When the world still did not buy into the legality of preemptive strikes, the reason soon became regime change, which interestingly enough also is illegal.
And like the crime of murder, there are various degrees with premeditation being the first degree. The Downing Street Memos showed premeditation to deceive congress and the American people, then inappropriately diverting funds, unnecessarily placing troops in harms way, etc., etc. Add to that the Plame leak, and you have acts of treason. And you ask why people believe there is cause for impeachment? Come on man, stop with the coy little games.
Last edited by a moderator: