[Peace-discuss] War & impeachment

[John W.]

Henry Seiter, Jr. appears to be essaying to emulate Spiro Agnew with his 
alliteration.  Remember the phrase "nattering nabobs of negativity"? :-)



At 04:56 PM 5/3/2006, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>[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
>
>================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060503/6aa91a26/attachment.htm