Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on ITMFA: Ahead of the Curve

1

I noticed that too. And it especially jumped out at me how Newsweek downplays the numbers. They end the article by saying "there's less support for the idea of impeachment" and present the numbers broken down by priority, never mentioning that 51% in fact support impeachment.

Posted by Gabriel | October 24, 2006 7:25 AM
2

Hmm, an entire post seems to have vanished.

Posted by Gabriel | October 24, 2006 8:26 AM
3

Not vanished, Gabriel, just moved to later in the day. I meant to post it at 9 AMish, not 8 AMish.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 24, 2006 8:55 AM
4

Impeachment. Gee that's what our President should expect from an ungrateful contingent of liberal sourpusses after he has thwarted a dozen or more attacks since 9/11? After he has rescued millions of people from the genocidal regime of Saddam and the cruel repression of Al Qaeda? Don't forget that 9/11 was planned during the appeasing "Rodney King" polices of Bill Clinton.

In the final analysis history will revere George W. Bush as a bold leader in the fight against global Islamic jihadist terrorism.

Posted by Proud Gay Republican | October 24, 2006 8:58 AM
5

Dan controls time.

Posted by Gabriel | October 24, 2006 8:59 AM
6

I'm not sure if PRG is just a troll, but if you believe that history will remember W as anything other than a dangerous and incompetent failure, you're deluded. No future president will ever base her foreign policy on Bush's, that's for sure. And there is a persuasive case for impeachment. Josh Marshall hints at it here. The gist is that the country and the president have competing interests. When something is going wrong, the country would like to change that - to enact a new policy. But for the current president, changing the policy will be the last nail in the coffin of his legacy, finalizing his view of foreign policy as a major failure for the history books. It's just a matter of when. Bush keeps postponing that day of reckoning. The country's best interest is at odds with his.

Posted by Gabriel | October 24, 2006 9:08 AM
7

PGR is not deluded, he is a voter. Sad to say, I can name 5 people off the top of my head that would parrot PGR's BS.

Sadder to say, the dems won't take the senate, probably not the house either. And it is because of fools like PGR.

Posted by Mike in MO | October 24, 2006 9:21 AM
8

A general rule is that anyone who posts with a vague title like Proud Head In Asser or I Love Density With Curly Fries or something, it's probably just someone trolling for fun.

Posted by Gomez | October 24, 2006 9:41 AM
9

Yes Dan, please. I've lost two of my three buttons!

Posted by Brie | October 24, 2006 9:45 AM
10

One flaw in your theory, PGR, is that George W. Bush has done more for global jihad than any man alive excepting possibly Osama bin Laden. Certainly he is their all-time champion recruiter. And in every single front of the war on terror, the liberal, Western position is greatly weakened. Democracy itself is in retreat across the globe. That is all George W. Bush's fault.

Bush's decimation of the Geneva Conventions is going to backfire, when our opponents, in this fight and in many others, start similarly abusing us. The reason the Geneva Conventions were instituted in the first place is not out of regard for their soldiers but for ours. Bush has put our soldiers in greater and more unnecessary danger than any other President.

As for your "five plots", give me a fucking break. Very few of the men we've broken were capable of plotting which pants to wear in the morning let alone real terror.

In the most recent big plot, the US insisted on exposing the plot early, over the objections of the more level-headed British, thus preventing not terror but preventing more intelligence. The plotters, with their "imminent danger", had no bombs, no passports, no plane tickets, and no plans. They might have been about to get those things, but we stopped them before they could lead us to the worse terrorists who DO have them. We stopped nothing, and we allowed the worst to stay free.

Bush is the best friend the terrorists could possibly ever have wished for. And you, PGR, are a self-loathing, delusional toilet.

Posted by Fnarf | October 24, 2006 9:46 AM
11

You know the R’s have reached the last page of their playbook when they start blaming Bill Clinton again. Because…..he bombed Osama years before anyone had even heard of him? Good one, guys.

Posted by BC | October 24, 2006 10:36 AM
12

Those impeachment numbers are enough to get me hard, and those are before the upcoming investigations. Once all of the wrongdoing is on the nightly news every day for months at a time, he'll be out on his ass before the end of 2007.

Posted by Gitai | October 24, 2006 10:43 AM
13

Proud Gay Republican is undeniably mad, but Mike in MO is correct –he does represent around 51% of the US. I mean, seriously, these people study the Bible so their views are totally self-contradictory and illogical anyway. The less sense a leader makes, the more persuasive he is.

Anyone who claims with a straight face that the Republicans are the Party of small government, fiscal responsibility and personal liberty is beyond denial –they’ve had a psychotic break with reality. I see no reason to further coddle the insane people who’ve gotten us into this fiasco.

If Bush held up four fingers and claimed he was holding up five, not only would they enthusiastically agree that yes he is holding up five fingers -they would believe it!

If Bush claimed he was as light as a soap bubble and could float away on a whim, they would sob and demand to know when he will return.

If Bush put a gun to their mothers’ heads and pulled the trigger, they would scream that their mothers were traitors who hated America.

Never mind all of the treasonous lies, criminal incompetence, duplicitous cover-ups, moral bankruptcy, venal greed and open hypocrisy. It won’t change Proud Gay Republican’s vote!

Posted by Andrew | October 24, 2006 11:05 AM
14

As much as I hate to say it, I'm against ImpeachingTMFA. If we get rid of Bush, then what? Dick Cheney, that's what.

Until Cheney gets indicted for his misdeeds, Bush is the lesser of the evils.

Posted by gillsans | October 24, 2006 11:08 AM
15

Actually, impeaching the President doesn't guarantee that the VP takes over - something about the articles of impeachment ensuring that a corrupt administration doesn't continue where the old guy left off... I'm fuzzy on details, it's been too long since I studied The Constitution.

Posted by Soupytwist | October 24, 2006 11:52 AM
16

Fair enough. I expected those adolescent retorts. I admit that Bush is arrogant and has committed several blunders. But what is the alternative? What is the democrats plan for stabilizing Iraq? I have yet to hear anything but recycled Bush bashing talking points.

Posted by Proud Gay Republican | October 24, 2006 12:40 PM
17

My retort wasn't adolescent, it was very specific. You didn't address it because you can't. You have nothing. Your whole political world is a house of cards, and it's falling now. Bush is the worst president we have ever had, and you're going to go down with him.

Posted by Fnarf | October 24, 2006 12:48 PM
18

Well, I'll tell you my plan for stabilizing Iraq is: a draft. I'm a 23-year-old fit male pacifist, and I think a draft would be a great idea. It will take more troops now to stabilize Iraq than it would have to keep it stable in the first place, but as long as we can find enough people of fighting age here who aren't morbidly obese yet, we need people from all walks of life to see exactly what we've gotten ourselves into. We need to wake the fuck up and remember what war is. Not "shock and awe". Danger, suffering and death. The hope would be to keep things calm over there long enough to get a decent society rebuilt, and have a whole generation, or the surviving members, come home with an appreciation of exactly how serious a decision it is to go to war. Furthermore, I think we should amend the Constitution to require a standing army only as large as is needed in peacetime, with a draft to kick in automatically with any authorization for war from Congress. It must be a shared bodily sacrifice whenever we decide to use military force, not a sacrifice of the poor and abused who have no other option. It may be too late for Iraq, though - they may resent us enough now that any further effort will be rejected.

Posted by Noink | October 24, 2006 1:06 PM
19

Many of the leaders who got us into this mess are part of the Vietnam war generation. Boomers who were subject to the Vietnam draft vote overwhelmingly Republican. Seniors who lived through World War II, and or, the Depression vote Republican. Granted, a draft will get us out of this war faster than anything else, but how will a draft make anyone reconsider war in general? It certainly hasn't worked in the past.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 24, 2006 2:56 PM
20

How many of them actually fought, though? And what if they were putting their children in danger by starting another war?

Posted by Noink | October 24, 2006 3:25 PM
21

The rich and powerful always find a way out for their kids. The public may be less likely to support a war when a draft is in place, but, unfortunately, the people ultimately don't make that decision. Our country's memory hole also seems to be vast and deep.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 24, 2006 3:43 PM
22

Noink,

I should point out that the vast majority of our troops are Republican voters who vote a straight Republican ticket. We learned this during the 2004 election.

If they're willing to vote for the people who send them to die based on politically convenient lies, then the shared sacrifice of a draft won't help. It would only further militarize our society.

Posted by Andrew | October 24, 2006 4:33 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).