[Peace-discuss] War & impeachment

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Here's a letter to the N-G from last week; my answer, sent today, 
follows. --CGE]

   Different rules apply to different presidents
   Friday April 28, 2006

I see the pouting pundits of pessimism are reveling in their latest 
political coup by calling for President Bush's impeachment. In a fit of 
venomous divisiveness, these political partisans have recklessly 
conflated virtually every post-9/11 decision made by President Bush into 
some Watergate-style scandal.

Their rant about "Bush's illegal war" is disingenuous given their own 
silence during Bill Clinton's unilateral bombing of sovereign countries 
in the Balkans. President Clinton conducted those military operations 
without either a joint congressional resolution or a United Nations 
resolution, yet he was hailed as a great liberator.

Does anyone remember any self-described "person of conscience," like 
Carl Estabrook, pushing for municipal resolutions to impeach Clinton for 
his "illegal warmongering" seven years ago?

By contrast, President Bush received his initial authorization to use 
American military force against the Taliban, al-Qaida and rogue 
terrorist states through the Sept. 14, 2001, congressional resolution.

The subsequent October 2002 congressional resolution for the use of 
American force in Iraq listed 15 reasons besides weapons of mass 
destruction to depose Saddam's regime.

As to U.N. Resolution 1441, the subsequent Duelfer/Kay report still 
found Saddam's regime in "material breach" despite the apparent lack of 
ready stockpiles of WMD.

One can only marvel at how the majority of these left-wing Bush-bashers, 
who have long prided themselves in seeing everything in nuanced shades 
of gray, now magically see everything in black and white.

It is precisely this kind of self-serving partisan zealotry that poses 
the greatest threat to this nation's ability to defend itself during 
these perilous times.

HENRY SEITER Jr.

================

A letter to your journal recently [April 28] attacked those of us who 
condemn Bush's illegal war and call for the impeachment of his 
administration as "disingenuous given their own silence during Bill 
Clinton's unilateral bombing of sovereign countries in the Balkans." In 
fact it mentioned me personally as not condemning Clinton's war, and not 
calling for his impeachment.

The writer is ill-informed on several matters.  He is unaware of my 
condemnation at the time -- in speech, in print and on my regular weekly 
program on politics on community station WEFT-FM ("News from Neptune") 
-- of Clinton's illegal war; and of my view that Clinton was quite 
properly impeached -- and should have been removed from office -- for 
perjury and obstruction of justice.  (I even mentioned my support for 
Clinton's impeachment at the annual meeting of the township of the City 
of Champaign, which placed withdrawal and impeachment referenda on the 
ballot for the coming election.)

More importantly, the writer is apparently led into error by the silly 
assumption that political views in this country are exhaustively defined 
by the Republican and Democrat positions, so that those who see 
correctly that Bush is a war criminal must fail to see that Clinton was, 
too.

In fact, both political parties, beholden as they are to big business, 
are substantially to the right of the political opinions of Americans in 
general.  As rich and poor diverge in America, the obsequy shown by both 
parties to wealth and privilege only increases.

CARL ESTABROOK

================