Impeachment or Iraq pull-out? A hypothetical poll.

[ripple]

Fortunately, we aren't forced to choose between the two (of course, neither is happening, either).

This question comes to mind because it seems like for a lot of folks, Ford's pardon of Nixon was so nefarious, it has even overshadowed the fact that Ford also got us out of Vietnam.


Just to be clear, the purpose of this poll isn't to rehash Ford's decision, but to look at two similar issues in today's world and assess which one is more urgent for other DU'ers.

So, if you were forced to choose between impeaching Bush and pulling out of Iraq, which would be your top priority?

:dilemma:

[BOSSHOG]

1. Bring the troops home now

and let them deal with bush.

[Road Scholar]

2. Both! eom

[Higans]

16. ya, can't we do both?

[Pharaoh]

3. Need to get rid of the Commander in chief

that's the 1st step in leaving Iraq...........

[damntexdem]

4. Getting rid of whatever was forcing me to choose only one ...

of two essential tasks.

[Vincardog]

5. First return this country to the rule of law (Investigate indict impeach convict imprison)

Then let the country remove the troops.

[Tommy_J]

6. I voted for impeachment First

because that might reduce the average Iraqi's hatred of America. And that might help, in some fashion, to withdraw.

So, I'm cheating a bit in your poll. I can't imagine not impeaching AND ceasing the occupation. Just saying thats my preferred order.

[orpupilofnature57]

7. Impeaching Shrub is the only way anything ,not having to do with the top 1%

will get done ,we've played the Emperors Clothing long enough.

[SteppingRazor]

8. I voted get the troops out now...

if it meant an immediate end to this ridiculous war, and that not one more soldier had to die for nothing, I'd be willing to forgo impeachment in a heartbeat. We're talking about life and death here, versus just removing someone from office that has been devastatingly bad at his job. I think the former is much more important than the latter, especially now that we have a Democratic Congress that should be able to hold Bush in check until the end of his term.

[GreenCommie]

9. A tough choice

At first I was about to vote for bringing home the troops, but instead I voted for impeachment.

Bringing home the troops would save many lives from being lost in an unjustifiable quagmire, but it is my opinion that impeaching those responsible for sending them there will make future presidents think twice about their actions, saving many more lives down the road.

[TahitiNut]

10. (Hmmm..) Walk or chew gum? Walk or chew gum? Walk or chew gum?

Walk or chew gum? Walk or chew gum? Walk or chew gum? Walk or chew gum? Walk or chew gum? That's a tough one. :eyes:

[ripple]

12. I don't think either option could seriously be equated with chewing gum

and I doubt you do, either.

[TahitiNut]

13. Well, that's about as obtuse a remark as I could expect.

:shrug:

It's somewhat remarkable that, during an avalanche of Ford threads, someone would be so totally unaware of the allusion (not to mention the basic idiom) that they'd miss the point entirely.
:eyes: (Listening to the sound of a turnip truck turn the corner with a lighter load.) :eyes:


Obligatory clue net: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22walk+and+chew+gum%22&btnG=Google+Search

Relevant article for today: http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=11696

[ripple]

18. I'm not stupid, nor am I easily insulted

Your analogy missed the point. Of course we can pull out of Iraq, impeach Bush, Cheney, and prosecute everyone from Rumsfeld to Bremer to Barney. We can create renewable fuels, pass universal health care, increase the minimum wage, build decent levies, fight poverty, improve education, etc. - all at the same time!

I deliberately chose two extremely important initiatives - not because I believe they can't be accomplished simultaneously, but because I wanted to see which one most DU'ers consider top priority. Also, because pondering such questions is occasionally thought-provoking. I'm sorry if you don't agree.

In any case, it was a hypothetical poll question. If you don't wish to respond to it, don't. It's that simple.




edited to remove snarky comment

[TahitiNut]

19. How nice for you... but irrelevant, since it was not alleged you're either.

You say, "If you don't wish to respond to it, don't. It's that simple."

Strangely enough, I DID respond. It also seems you noticed that I did. That's even simpler. :shrug:

You say I "missed the point." That's false. If anyone "missed the point," you did.

Your poll is a "push poll" - in that it clearly implies a disjunction between the efficacy of terminating the military occupation of Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan) and the impeachment, removal from office, and prosecution of the war criminals who betrayed a public trust and abused their delegated authority in order to engage in a military conquest and colonization of a sovereign people and their national resources.

It's my firm contention that there can reasonably be no such disjunction between the two.

The crimes against peace and war crimes of this regime will, in my opinion, almost certainly assure that we will face a deeply-entrenched, just, and implacable enmity of Middle Eastern peoples for decades to come. If anything should be clear from ANY study of the history of the Middle East it is that the memories of people are very long and resulting animosities are tenaciously held.

Therefore, unless and until We The People unambiguously punish those of our nation who've perpetrated these heinous crimes, we will face conditions of our own creation that will irrevocably assure a continued military occupation and world-wide retributions for decades to come.

That's the point. :shrug: IOW, it's "walk AND chew gum." Got it? :eyes:

[ripple]

20. I'm not sure if it was the reference to falling off of a turnip truck,

calling my statement obtuse, indicating that you actually expected me to make such an obtuse statement, or the multiple :eyes: ‘s that gave me that impression. :shrug:

In any case, your explanation for why choosing one answer to the question I posed is unacceptable demonstrates why your own analogy is flawed. As you pointed out, choosing between an Iraq pull-out or impeachment would unlikely yield the intended results, no matter which is chosen(ie: an Iraq pull-out wouldn’t be a guarantee that the same criminals wouldn’t go into Iran or another nation, while impeachment alone wouldn’t guarantee a change in mindset with regard to Iraq and foreign policy in general). By contrast, one can walk and chew gum and achieve the desired result of each action, even if they are not performed simultaneously. In other words, not chewing gum has no impact on one’s ability to walk, and vice versa. I specifically chose the gum chewing portion to make my point, because when faced with the hypothetical choice between having the ability to walk or chew gum, the preference would undoubtedly be universal, even among the most avid gum chewers. And yes, while the term itself is generally phrased with an "and", it is specifically intended to provide a contrast between simultaneous actions and actions that are non-simultaneous.

*Sigh* Having explained all of that to the point of absurdity, I do agree with you that neither solution, without the other, provides any lasting solvency. As silly as this hypothetical question might seem to you, I think achieving even one of these objectives would constitute a momentous accomplishment, given the lack of consensus or political will on the part of our party leaders right now(esp. with regard to impeachment).

With that said, since I haven’t done so already, I’ll weigh in with my two cents about the question. If I could choose only one objective, it would be impeachment. The reason I choose this is that most of the grounds for impeachment would involve the illegal actions on the part of the administration, both leading up to and during the war. By shining a spotlight on the criminality of the war, I think public opinion (and consequently, political will) would likely lead to a swift exit from Iraq. Also, while there are no guarantees that the current criminals won’t be replaced with more of the same, I think an impeachment might at least slow them down a bit.

In contrast, by extricating ourselves from Iraq without holding the architects and their henchmen accountable, we would only be encouraging more of the same behavior. Here, also, there would be no guarantees that these asshats wouldn’t try to pull the same illegal stunt elsewhere. After all, if they were not held accountable for even the most overtly blatant criminality, there is little reason to believe they would change their behavior.

Again, I agree wholeheartedly that neither option by itself is enough, but one or the other is certainly preferable to neither (which will probably be the more likely scenario, at least in the immediate future).

Your assessment is right on and I don't blame you for not wishing to make a choice in the poll. Hypotheticals aren't for everyone, especially when they involve life and death (or democracy vs. fascism). There was a method to my madness, even if you don't agree with it. That's all.

Peace.

[TahitiNut]

21. Never confuse an attack on the message as an attack on the messenger.

This is a discussion board. As such, it's both fair and expected that we will challenge, attack, criticize, and parse the posts (messages) ... but not the messenger. The latter is an ad hominem and, besides being fallacious, is rightfully disallowed by the rules. There is a single exception to the distinction between attacking the message and attacking the messenger, and that's calling the message a "lie" ... since the implication that the messenger is a 'liar' is unavoidable.

That said, it's pretty clear that many of us attach our egos (our self-esteem?) to the messages we post ... and emotionally equate an attack on the message an an attack on our selves. (This is where, imho, "thick skin" is best calloused.)

All too often we don't merely address the message ... we attack the very temerity of the messenger to post the message. That, imho, is a degree of presumption that's uncalled-for. All message-focused responses are fair, imho.

[ripple]

23. No argument here

I agree that it’s virtually impossible to engage in a healthy debate without providing criticism of the opposing arguments presented. It isn’t merely acceptable, it should be expected. Personal insults serve only as a distraction from the discussion at hand, and they really have no place in any sort of productive debate.

It was mostly the turnip truck comment, along with the statement about expecting me to say something obtuse that gave me the impression you were trying to insult me on a personal level. I’ve never heard the turnip truck phrase used to define objects or intangibles, only people. If I misinterpreted your intent (and it sounds like I did), I apologize.

[LWolf]

11. Both, without delay.

Food or water? Choose only one. Slow starvation or quick dehydration. :eyes:

[ripple]

15. Both isn't an option (hypothetical aside, I wish either OR both would be an option at this point)

And as with most hypothetical questions, it presents a conundrum.

Oh, and I would choose slow starvation. ;-)

[burrowowl]

14. BOTH!

and POSTHASTE!

[Neshanic]

17. Impeach and convict first.

[Akoto]

22. Troop withdrawl first.

We've got to treat the symptom before we cure the cause, as in this case, the symptom (the war) is causing hundreds of people to die every month.

Impeachment can, and very likely will, be dragged out over a LONG period of time. Bush knows people who know the ins and outs of the law, and how to twist them just so. Our first priority should be to halt the bloodshed.

[KansDem]

24. Both, but in alphabetical order...

Iraq then impeachment...

Wait! Make that "reverse alphabetical order."