I found Jerome's argument counterproductive for impeachment advocates, because a general impression that the rest of the world wants him impeached is his surest ticket to see out the rest of his term.

But since I am not an impeachment advocate for now, and probably not for another six months, that did not aggravate me very much.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

Not a relevant or useful comment, if you don't mind me saying so.

I'm not personally so concerned by the impeachment argument per se, rather by general misunderstandings, and more on ET than on DKos, because I'm much more interested in maintaining a good level of discussion and exchange here than in whatever Kos wants to make of his mega-machine from now on. So the impeachment question wasn't my topic here.

I find this is right beside the point:

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.

In what way Jérôme is equivalent to the entire English-speaking media beats me. And Jérôme (or anyone here) doesn't complain about the English-speaking media making broad generalisations without studying the detail -- or at least, that isn't the main thrust. What several of us say here is that the English-language media peddle ideologically-determined propaganda about continental Europe, and that they set the agenda for media in other languages too, creating a corpus of globalised conventional wisdom about who is ahead of the curve and who is dragging their feet, about what is "inevitable", about what must be "reformed", and that this CW is in fact entirely favourable to the copious lining of rich men's pockets.

I actually understood Jerome's argument as also being cogent and centrally important for American politics and the needs of American citizenry.

We need a mechanism which dissuades leaders from lying (in order to cover up blow jobs) in order to start wars.

What are these mechanisms?

I can think of only two: impeachment and criminal trial.

It's a pretty short diary that can make this case to the American people.

"You have to do something about leaders that lie in order to start wars."

Nothing to do with domestic politics...

The Bush administration has spent the last five years subverting the US constitution and planting poisonous legislative, executive and judiciary seeds that need to be purged from the system. None of this will happen and it will come back to bite us. As for Kos, if he gets a Democratic President in 2008, he'll probably argue that Bush's expanded executive powers come in real handy.

That is the problem.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

IMHO, there is not even close to a majority view in America that Bush should be impeached.  there clearly is a strong view that either A. we went to war prematurely in Iraq, or B. we screwed up the post-war,,,and I agree with both.  The most receptive audience to Jerome's call to impeachment would be found on DKos.  But evidently, and I don't read Dkos, even they have rejected that view.  

Jerome is of course welcome to voice his opinion on what Americans should think and do, but he shouldn't be surprised at the reaction--it would have been far, far stronger if posted to the American public generally.

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.
  

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.

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.

• as has been pointed out elsewhere, i'm just a single voice with a small audience, I'm not major media outlet with the corresponding influence. so the comparison is silly because the impact is not proportionate;

• I'm not complaining about broad generalizations, I'm complaining about specific errors, lies or sloppiness that gets repeated ad nauseam because it fits a narrative created by a very coherent ideology.
  

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

I've a lot of agreement for jeromes basic argument.  but would like to take it further. It's argued that it would be a disgrace if Bush was not to be impeached. I would say it is an act of political and moral cowardice that will come back to haunt the democratic party if they do not at least try.

Kos' counter arguments are somewhat simplistic. his first point

we cannot actually convict, so a failed attempt would vindicate Bush much the same way it did for Clinton;

 Well I'd argue that they are such a piss poor gang of incompetents, that it would be hard for any investigation not to turn up enough to damage any feasable candidate that the republicans are going to put up against you at the next election. plus it will distract their entire election machine during the next couple of years when they are trying to get their campaign running properly. If they want to find George not guilty, they are going to have to deflect blame to other quarters.

it would prevent the new Democratic Congress from pursuing progressive democratic legislation, which it does have the votes for.

 What? is there some strange unwritten rule that says that the houses of government can't do anything else whilst impeachmet is happening?  If the media is concentrating on this, it may be an oppertunity to slip through far more progressive legislation, whilst they are distracted.

it would take at least a year, by which time Bush's term would have only a year left anyway.

Now that argument really makes my Blood boil. How is that of any relevence at all? If the  American government is not willing to hold its members to account, then it is essential the populace holds its elected representatives feet to the fire. The power that drives American exceptionalism, is that it is meant to be a pure democracy where politicians are heald to account by the people. Much of the world is willing to go along with this myth, but you have to live up to it for this dispensation to be granted, without it you are just another grubby nation state.

We don't say the average burglar only is going to have your tv for half an hour, before he trades it in for drugs, and his life expectancy is way down on the rest of us and as he's not going to be around for long, we should let him get on with it. why should we deal with crooked politicians in that way?

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.

I'd say it does, If you dont deal with the whole gang now, then the next generation of republican operatives will turn up, having been taught the valuable lesson that we do not expect responsibility from our politicians. and that any half assed, crack brained scam that they can come up with will be tolerated "for the good of the country". It's hard to see any republican president who hasn't come to office without some severe political impropriety. It is in the American publics interest that these Jackals are removed from the process, and I fam frankly incredulous that any American cannot see it that way.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.