[Peace-discuss] War & impeachment

[C. G. Estabrook]

...which William Safire wrote for him, Spiro being too busy
accepting cash in brown evenvelopes.


---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 17:23:14 -0500
>From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] War & impeachment   
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>, Peace Discuss
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>   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
>
>     ================