Would there have been an anti-war leftist progressive movement if Al Gore had won in 2000 and again in 2004? Would we have gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq at all? Would there be any war to potentially protest?
I actually believe Al Gore would have started down the same path as George Bush. Everyone was looking at the same intelligence, everyone worried about these threats that had been left unchecked for years and needed to be addressed. No one wanted to face another 9/11. And a Leftist in power would never want to be perceived as weak in the aftermath of the worst act of terrorism on American soil in history. With a Republican or a Democrat, we would have been at war. Does anyone believe the war waged by Gore would have gone faster, smoother, with less loss of life? That we'll never know. In fact, all these hypothetical scenarios are really neither here nor there, but I can't help but wonder if Gore would be facing impeachment rumblings had he followed Bush's course as I believe he would have.
And now, would Gore face impeachment with these facts backing him?:
- No major act of terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11
- Numerous acts of attempted terrorism thwarted
- Economic vitality after huge national crises--9/11, Katrina, Rita, Enron, snow storms & other natural disasters disrupting things
- Unemployment at 4.5%
- U.S. deficit dropping by 25% in last year alone
- Less than 1000 soldiers lost in each year of conflict against a treacherous enemy
- Appointment of stellar, respected Supreme Court Justices
- Minorities heading several of the most important leadership positions in the administration
- Other rogue nations giving up nefarious ways
- Dennis Kucinich: Do you think It's Time?
- Over at HuffPo there's talk of "imperial presidency"
- Cynthia McKinney asks, "Why is impeachment off the table?"
- Others on the Left hope for a "double impeachment"
- Richard Behan calls Impeachment an "act of Patriotism"
- David Lindroff asks, "Why haven't they impeached Bush already?
If Democrats wanted to end the war, they could do so immediately by refusing to pass a supplemental funding measure to support it, but they don’t want to do this. It’s not that they fear being called unpatriotic--hell, with 70 percent of the public wanting the war to end immediately, nobody would fault Congress for pulling the plug. Even the troops who are stuck over there wouldn't be upset to see the funding that keeps them there terminated. But ending the war would leave the Democrats without their best issue going into the 2008 national election: Bush’s war. So instead of ending the war, they vote to oppose it, but then continue to fund it. (Rep. Emanuel has actually said publicly that it would be good for Democrats if the war were to continue through November 2008.)Well, I have to agree with Lindroff about one thing: the decision to not impeach is political. If the Democrats go forward with an impeachment hearing for President Bush, they will sink their chances of winning just about any election again in the near future in all both the most Blue of Blue districts. I suspect that Nancy Pelosi knows this. While she would be crowned Queen Forever in San Francisco, the rest of the country would beat the rest of the Democrats to a red, bloody pulp--electorally speaking.
It’s a supremely cynical campaign ploy, and it’s also behind the strategy of keeping impeachment “off the table.” If Bush were impeached, and witnesses began getting called in under oath to expose his and Vice President Dick Cheney’s lies and deceit in tricking the nation into war, his illegal NSA spying activities, his obstruction of justice in the Valerie Plame outing investigation, his authorization of torture, his obstruction of efforts to combat global warming, his criminal failure to provide troops with armor or to plan for an Iraq occupation or to respond to the disaster in New Orleans, and his usurpation of the powers of Congress and the Judiciary in invalidating over 1200 laws passed by the Congress, it would almost certainly lead to his (and Cheney’s) removal from office and to a prompt end to the war. Then where would Democrats be?
They’d have to stand on their own merits.
As for the Leftist concerns about Bush, he's wrong. First, Bush didn't deceive anyone. Everyone was privy to the same intelligence, worldwide, and everyone was wrong, or late, depending on your view. I'm one of those people who believe the convoy going toward Syria was actually carrying something. Second, show me where 70% of Americans want our soldiers out of Iraq, now. I don't believe it. If that was the case, I think even George Bush would change his mind. Third, the NSA program is legal. And it's not a big sell to the American people. It might be a tougher sell if we were get hit by terrorists every day. (What's the point of survellience if plots aren't stopped?) And "no one would fault Congress for pulling the plug" is wishful thinking. Congress would be exactly who would get blamed and everyone in Congress knows it. As for torture, Americans are against it, but if Sheikh Mohommad gives up info that saves my kids, guess what? Americans will look the other way, but they would sure as heck blame the President if we suffered another attack which could have been prevented with some judicious use of water-boarding. Global Warming--the President would be impeached for obstructing Global Warming ending efforts? And as the list goes on and on, Americans ignore all of it.
Impeaching President Bush would be a Democrat disaster of monumental proportions.
And as for the genuineness of the Leftist Progressive outrage, I don't believe for an instant that Gore would be facing impeachment in these circumstances. The Progressive Left is on angry auto-pilot. The notion that there actions against a President during a time of war would undermine the United States everywhere escapes them. They believe the opposite is true.
The only problem with this Impeachment talk is that Americans don't want the President impeached and everyone in Washington knows this. But the leftist progressives won't be stopped, if they have their way.