Reply #42: Three thank yous.

[robertpaulsen]

First of all, thank you for clarifying the historical inaccuracy behind the argument of Clinton's impeachment being revenge for Nixon. True, the Neo-con Nutters might seem to be aligned with Nixon, since they're both Republicans focused on power as an ends to itself by whatever means, legal or not. But ideologically, Nixon was practically liberal compared to Gingrich, it makes more sense to suggest they were out for revenge over the censure of Joe McCarthy.

Thank you also for pointing out the strawman argument of impeachments versus investigations. Nobody who is seriously studying the situation would argue that we could initiate impeachment proceedings without the formal investigative process that I have pointed out that Waxman intends to initiate. This is not just for maintaining accuracy among like minds, but to engage the public in an understanding of the genesis of this criminal enterprise, especially as it relates to Cheney and Halliburton. The goal is to build consensus so that the general public understands that high "borderline treasonous" crimes as opposed to trivial (lying about blowjob) misdemeanors.

Finally, thank you for pointing out something that previously only Olbermann has drawn attention to, and that is Bush talking about the control of oil on the weekend prior to the election. It was one of those rare moments where the truth slipped out in a time of desperation. Given the results of the election, I think it would be in our favor to keep using his own words against him as a talking point: this war cannot be maintained over fear that we may lose control of oil THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO US.