Does the US need another Watergate?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Agathon, Apr 20, 2007.

  1. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #1
    I'm interested to see what people think.

    In many ways, Watergate was the high point of the American system of government. It showed that the separation of powers idea worked and that a criminal who abused the Presidency could be (effectively) removed.

    Now things seem a lot worse. Frankly, Nixon was an amateur compared to the Bush administration. The latter has left nothing but wreckage in its wake and has (to my untrained eye) shamelessly engaged in massive abuses of power and corruption. The level of mendacity and wrongdoing of the Bush administration rivals some third world dictatorships in its audacity (even conservatives like John Dean think that this is worse than Nixon).

    Impeachment proceedings would certainly restore the image of American democracy abroad, and probably at home as well.

    Or does no one really care about their country any more.
     
  2. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #2
    Actually I think that it's the last part. Not only do we not care about our country but I'm thinking that we are more worried who will win American Idol instead.
     
  3. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #3
    Yes, I'm sure. :rolleyes:
     
  4. peterjhill macrumors 65816

    peterjhill

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #4
    There are plenty of non US people who read MR. I wonder what their opinions are.

    I can't imagine that Rove and crew think that they are not corrupt. It is like Enron took over the government and are trying to bankrupt the US morally and financially.
     
  5. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #5
    And what image would that be? I can't imagine appearances are the first thing to come to mind when buildings come crashing down or holes get blown into naval vessels.
     
  6. peterjhill macrumors 65816

    peterjhill

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #6
    Are you trolling or trying to participate in this discussion? How do things like the Cole bombing and the multiple WTC attacks relate to this discussion?

    9/11 is not an acceptible reason to go after the job of the federal attorney that brought Duke Cunningham to justice. The cole bombing is not a good enough reason to allow White House insiders to skirt around Hatch Act by using outside email accounts to do government business.

    What percentage of our US budget is being spent on preventing attacks like the ones you mentioned from happening again? Compared to the budget cleaning up after our invasion of Iraq. I'm no fan of Saddam. There are no pictures of me shaking his hand. Our war in Iraq had little to do with 9/11 and more to do with an erronous vison of Bush's supporters thinking that they could "fix" the middle east by invading and bringing democracy to them. The problems in the middle east did not start when Saddam took power. They existed long before the United States existed.

    I sure hope you are a troll looking for some laughs and don't seriously understand what is happening in the world around us.
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    A lot of people care about the country, but aren't calling for impeachment for good reason. The Bush administration was handed a repudiation last year, and is very probably facing an even larger one next year. Impeachment would be not only nonproductive, but quite potentially, counterproductive. History will be Bush's cruelest judge.

    On the NewsHour last night, the best thing the Republican Senator Arlen Specter could say in favor of the Attorney General after his testimony is that he displayed a lack of competence. That just about sums it up, I think.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    I agree absolutely with the OP: the American people need to show some real self-respect, and the only way to do that is to establish that they expect a higher standard of behaviour from their representatives.
     
  9. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #9
    With all the Democrat vs. Republican verbal barbs being tossed back and forth, we need a President that can bring a period of healing. Which is not really too likely to happen.

    So, just bring back dueling with pistols to the political arena and let them solve their differences in a more civilized manner.
     
  10. peterjhill macrumors 65816

    peterjhill

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #10
    I don't think that being a bad president is worth impeachment. This is the UK where votes of no confidence can oust a PM (or so it seems, I'm an american after all and don't need to know about how other countries work... just kidding).

    If the VP or President broke serious laws.. commited felonies.. then I don't see the need to wait until after the next presidental election to see something change. Bush I see as incompetent. Cheney seems to be the one more likely to have broken laws, though I am sure he probably thinks he is bending them to make a better America.

    If they are really looking for a war czar, what happend to the title commander in chief. I was in the Navy. My chain of command ended in a chair in the oval office. The one behind the desk.
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    Quite right. The U.S. federal structure is not even remotely like the parliamentary system. Presidents don't get removed from office for political or even competence reasons -- and it's bad for the country when efforts are made to remove a president on those grounds. We get a national election every two years, which does not occur in a parliamentary system. Even so, I have to note that Tony Blair has pretty well determined his own retirement date, even though the majority in his party seem to have wanted him gone long ago. Maybe the British have a thing or two to learn about self-respect, before they think to teach it. ;)
     
  12. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    What does impeachment really do. What did it do to Clinton? It is not a sure way to get a person out of office.
     
  13. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #13
    Yeah, those were a setup for sure. :rolleyes:
     
  14. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #14
    Suggesting the Mark Wahlberg solution I guess?
     
  15. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #15
    you mean like the way you guys gave Blair and his gang the boot in your last election? :rolleyes:
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    We're no better off, but we can't do so much damage. Your President's antics are liable to set the entire world back several decades. Blair's twattishness will pass.
     
  17. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    Clinton was impeached, but only by the House of Representatives. The senate vote against him failed to achieve the 2/3 majority required of such proceedings and thus Clinton remained in office.

    However, I think your point is valid, by the time proceedings are completed Bush will probably be within the 'lame-duck' period of his term and thus it will be a waste of time, highlighted only by partisan bickering and accusations.
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    That's no answer, really. When you say that the "American people should show some real self-respect," are you suggesting that the entire U.S. government system needs to be altered? If so, to what, the parliamentary system? You've admitted that it doesn't work in your country.
     
  19. fotografica macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Location:
    Boston
    #19
    It's frightening sometimes. People can name everybody on American Idol but yet they can't even begin to have a discussion on current events,politics etc..Sometimes I wish the whole Reality Show idea never came about...
     
  20. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #20
    Impeachment takes both the House and Senate. Motions to impeach Clinton only passed the House. Bush should be impeached by both.
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    I think both our countries are suffering from a corrupt and cynical administration. Ideally, both Bush and Blair should be brought to book. It may yet happen, of course. If either of them gets away with the abuse they have perpetrated by sidestepping and subverting the checks and balances of both our systems, it shows that those checks and balances are inadequate, if only because they were designed with a presumption of less flagrant violation by the office-holders in each country. We should all be sufficiently outraged to demand a clear and unequivocal repudiation of their methods. In your case, this probably means impeachment. In our case, Blair will be gone in a matter of weeks, but I would hope he is not permitted to take his seat on the board of Carlyle without facing the music first.
     
  22. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #22

    an alluring thought but I don't agree with this idea. Here in the US, both Watergate and the Clinton impeachment were and continue to be extremely divisive events in American society. And abroad, while Bush's disasterous foreign policy only makes things worse, the negative image of the US is really driven by differing political ideology and cultural prejudices. Getting rid of Bush would only divert the negative attention to some other focus.
     
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
    The negative image of the US is mostly caused by Bush's foreign policy. What "cultural prejudices" are you referring to?
     
  24. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #24
    uh....you aren't seriously suggesting that the world had a mostly positive image of the USA before 2000?? For example, are you really claiming that the Arab world had a positive image of the USA in 1999?

    You yourself have posted condemnation after condemnation of US policies of pretty much all US administrations for years before Bush ever became president.....certainly you're not the only one in the world that had such a negative view of the US before Bush? :rolleyes:
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    The arrogance and incompetence of the Neo-Conservatives and their PNAC have made US foreign policy far more of a destructive force than it has been for years. Even Reagan wasn't so inept or so corrupt.
     

Share This Page