Saturday, November 16, 2019

Found an article that captures my displeasure with the impeachment hearings...

via The Nation.
The Democrats chose to elevate Kent and Taylor precisely because they were nonpartisan professionals, hence could speak in terms that might win independents and Republicans to impeachment. But nonpartisan is not the same as nonpolitical. As their testimony made clear, Kent and Taylor very much have a political agenda: They are advocates for a hawkish foreign policy that wants to use Ukraine as a bulwark against Russia. The diplomats used the limelight impeachment gave them to sell this policy to the American public as if it were the only approach a patriot could take.

The problem is, this policy is eminently worth challenging—and also a distraction from the real issue of impeachment. There are all sorts of reasons why a president might want to be cautious about overcommitting to Ukraine, a country that has a disputed border with a nuclear superpower.

As Republicans like Devin Nunes and Brad Wenstrup were quick to point out, Barack Obama resisted a push to send military aid to Ukraine after the Russian invasion of Crimea. Nunes and Wenstrup brought this up with the intent to prove that Trump was more in accord with the foreign policy establishment on Ukraine than Obama was. But the proper way to frame this is to note that presidents have a perfect right to reject the counsel of foreign policy hawks and act in measured ways if they see fit.

The whole question of proper Ukraine policy is a distraction, created by the Democrats’ desire to hold impeachment hearings on an issue where they could align themselves with the national security establishment and win over independents and conservatives.

Trump should not be impeached because he upset the national security establishment. Presidents have not just the right to disregard that establishment but, in fact, would usually be wise to do so. Nor should Trump be impeached because he undermined a Ukraine policy that has bipartisan support. After all, outside the consensus in Washington, there are many others who disagree with that policy. Even the fact that Trump runs a messy White House where goons like Giuliani are elbowing career diplomats isn’t really a good reason to impeach him. Giuliani is repugnant, but there’s ample precedent for a White House with private back channels. During the Kennedy administration, the president’s brother Robert Kennedy used a back channel with the USSR to help de-escalate during the Cuban missile crisis.
Story here. 

This article perfectly captures my disquiet with the impeachment hearings.

It's been all about Trump's disagreement with the National Security apparatus. A cabal that's been wrong about damn near everything for the last 20 to 30 years.

Those so called brains don't just need to be pushed back against, they probably need to be charged with treason and put on a wall and shot.  That's how much damage they've done to our nation.  They're shadowy figures that actually have little to no accountability for their actions or the lives they've wrecked.

As far as the corruption the article goes on to discuss? 

Kinda hard to square that circle when the crime just didn't occur.  This one is easy.  I give it a couple of more weeks of headline news and then everyone will tire of the drama and move onto something else.  Another issue that can divide the public and for the Dems, hopefully galvanize their base.

No comments :

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.