"The point is not the legitimacy of Conyers’s charges"?!

[eallen]

Byron York has an interesting http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVjM2M2N2U3ZjJlNTRiZmYzZjJkYzJiN2RlZGQyYjY="> article in National Review on Conyers's report on the Bush administration, The Constitution in Crisis. When you cut through the sniping, the article actually is a decent summary of why Bush should be impeached. Of course, York doesn't want that. Toward the end, he writes:

The point is not the legitimacy, or lack of legitimacy, of Conyers’s charges. It is the fact that Conyers might be just a few months away from the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. If he wins that seat, and he moves toward impeachment — and how could he not, if he believes the president broke not one, not two, not three, but 26 laws and regulations? — observers who haven’t been paying attention might express surprise or call such action precipitous.

Can anyone explain to me why the point isn't precisely the legitimacy of Conyers's charges?! If indeed the charges are legitimate, no president has ever so deserved impeachment, and every American should not only hope for it, but should demand it. But I guess not to a right-wing pundit, where the point isn't whether this president actually violated the law, but how to make sure he isn't held accountable.

:grr:

[MissWaverly]

1. the point is that he is a Bush and a member of the wealthy elite

and who are we to criticize him, don't let those dangerous democrats in, they investigate and
raise taxes, and, and, tell us we can't listen in on hot calls.

[wordpix2]

2. good post---Byron York is another BushCo apologist---I wonder if he's on

their payroll.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Because, the United States has given up on the 'rule of law'...it's

whatever the 'unitary executive' wants.

[Rose Siding]

4. York, in America the law is king.

So wrote Paine-

"But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is."

http://www.bartleby.com/133/3.html

[William Seger]

5. "The point is not the legitimacy of Conyers’s charges..."

"... the point is he is someone who actually stands a good chance of actually bringing about an actual impeachment. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!"

[Doctor_J]

6. what exactly do you expect from the National Review??

:crazy:

[Jai4WKC08]

7. York may actually have a point

I say this not having read the whole column, just the excerpt above.

Imo, proving Bush is a criminal by consitututional standards is easy. Convincing the American people he is will be much harder.

Partly because of administration control of the corporate media. They will do everthing they can to portray impeachment as either revenge for Clinton's impeachment, or another sign that the "radical far left who hates Bush no matter what he does" has taken over our party, or both. They will also say, as they have already and with some success, that Bush's crimes are necessary to "keep America safe from terrorists" and within his rights as a war-time commander in chief.

But also partly because voters are predisposed to trust the president -- the campaign against Bill Clinton was waged over many more years than we have. If we can't educate the people first, even a Democratic House might not vote to impeach, and the Senate (which may or may not be Democratic) may not vote to convict. And regardless of how they vote, we might lose the majority and have a harder time putting a Democrat in the White House in 2008.

It's not enough for us to be right. We must wage an effective PR campaign to convince people that we are.

[eallen]

8. Read the article. York is saying something quite different.

York isn't merely saying that Bush might not be impeached, even if the charges are legitimate. We all know that. As you point out, there has to be a political process to reach the point that impeachment is practical, regardless of how needed and legitimate it is.

York is saying that Democrats must not be elected, because that might start the process. And York doesn't want the impeachment process started no matter the legitimacy of the charges against Bush.

[Jai4WKC08]

9. Oh, well... when I went to find the article

I noticed it is from National Review. For some stupid reason, I was thinking TNR, which while I don't always agree with, I usually find worth looking at. But National Review? Not worth the paper it's printed on, nor the electrons it takes to circulate it on line.

From the author's by-line:
Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.

Scary bunch, aren't we? :evilgrin: