His argument was: the world looks at American foreign policy and would consider it a disgrace if Bush were not impeached. Kos' counter-argument was: we cannot actually convict, so a failed attempt would vindicate Bush much the same way it did for Clinton; it would prevent the new Democratic Congress from pursuing progressive democratic legislation, which it does have the votes for. it would take at least a year, by which time Bush's term would have only a year left anyway.
Kos' counter-argument was:
You make kos's case better than he did, but I agree that this was substantially was he said, minus the snippiness. I also agree with your characterisation of what i wrote.
Jérôme's argument can be found irritating to Americans because it doesn't go into the details of American domestic politics, which is of course of central importance to Americans. This makes American readers feel that their needs aren't being considered, only the rest of the world's. So their instinct is to lash out, even people who detest Bush and would love to impeach him if they could.
This makes American readers feel that their needs aren't being considered, only the rest of the world's. So their instinct is to lash out, even people who detest Bush and would love to impeach him if they could.
But the point was precisely to point out that other people are watching (even if they have no say in the process), and the details of American domestic politics are precisely of no importance to these watchers.
And of course foreigners will not worry so much about these domestic considerations, only with their actual consequences for US policies. But then foreigners can very easily be ignored or told off (MYOFB - mind your own fucking business) - and I was by a significant minority, including much of the brass of the site.
Ironically, of course, Jérôme regularly complains about media in English-speaking countries making broad generalizations about continental European economic policies without actually studying them in detail.
Heaven help us all!
If the US does not yet see the need to purge this festering foreign policy boil from its body politic by impeaching the person/persons responsible for its war-crimes, it is long overdue for international containment. "Ignoring moralities is always undesirable, but doing so systematically is really worrisome." Mohammed Khatami
When I look at the cheerleaders for the Washington Consensus - including the neocons, the CEO cult, the FT, the Economist, and the Straussians - I see no sign of empathy or human values.
This is a quasi-religious tribal cult that sees the rest of the world - and that includes everyone and everything outside of the privilieged circle - as either a threat, or a resource to be exploited.
It's completely pathological. It's beyond simple criminality, because it's not just about exploitative or violent practices. It goes much further into the systematic promotion of these exploitative values, and a deliberate attempt to destroy any point of view that promotes empathy, fair negotiation, and mutual respect among individuals, businesses, or countries.
This week's Economist headline is 'Why ethical shopping is bad for the world.'
I mean, come on, let's be honest about this - how utterly insane are these people?
And under it there's a stench of death and self-hatred, which you can see clearly in Bush and the other neocons.
This wouldn't be so bad, but Bush is America at this point in time. Those exploitative values are the values that the US seems to run on - competition without quarter, winner takes all, break the law if you can, and if you lose, you fall out of the bottom of the system. And best of luck.
There's still a sizeable interest in fairer values down among the populists. But the (would-be) artistocracy has lost the plot completely, and they really do need help before they drive everyone off the cliff.
Snowballingly "utterly insane". That´s why, to understand eachother, we need to >>>>SEPARATE people from "power" and not generalize. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
