From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 05:58:44 MST
Alex wrote:
"I should have stated my meaning and standpoint more clearly. From My casual
observation and those of the 'general public" types that I have spoken to.
Nixon is viewed as somewhat a loon who broke the law while in office.
Granted, he also achieved a great deal and these achievements are greatly
overshadowed by the events at the end of his Presidency.
I will admit that I am far from an expert on the subject as I was too young
to care at the time and today it really does not interest me a great deal as
I live in the UK. This may go far in explaining my viewpoint or may just be
fuel for an Ad-Hominem attack."
It does elaborate on your viewpoint, which as I said is what I expected. I
would merely suggest that Nixon is viewed as "somewhat of a loon" to many
people in this country who held that point of view of him even before any of
the Watergate affair began.
"My view of the current President is that he was not elected by the people
and should never have made it to the white house."
I would respectfully disagree with this position. As Lee illustrated, the
popular vote has never been the final arbiter of decision in an American
election. (Again, the aforementioned Nixon won the largest popular vote
margin of all time in 1972, and that didn't save him from a Congress with a
lynch mob mentality) President Bush clearly won the election in the system we
have. Perhaps it wouldn't have come down to the "messy" ending had Mr. Gore
not initially attempted to have only the votes recounted in three heavily
Democratic counties in Florida, especially when he was espousing a mantra of
"count all the votes". Given that New Mexico was even closer than Florida at
that point, it concerned me that he was not interested in truly having "all
the votes counted", but merely the ones that he thought would have put
himself in the White House. It is not my intention to reopen or rekindle the
flames of debate regarding the 2000 election, I merely mean to illustrate
that neither side is completely isolated from the charges and accusations
regarding their conduct.
"This is all an aside as my original post was simply a question as to "how do
you remove a person from elected office in the US?"
Let me say that is certainly true, however, since you chose to include what
some might call an "inflammatory" comment regarding President Nixon, I felt
that characterization was up for debate. As Lee has subsequently illustrated,
there are methods that can be used to remove a public official before his
term expires. But let's be fair, in the United States, this removal is almost
always due to some sort of corruption/ illegal financial gain. It is not
based on, say, a President inflicting mass murder/torture on his people. So
let us be clear in illustrating the merits of this system as opposed to
Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
"My question was in order to give me a better understanding of what safety
guards are in place to stop someone like Any President from doing something
utterly mad? For example, breaking international law, Illegally invading
another country or even forcing the country to follow a course of action that
is against the wishes of the majority of the public and could conceivably
start a second cold war."
I think Lee answered these queries quite well in his post, but I will touch
on a few of them. To touch on international law, and more to the point the
UN, let me say this. The Korean War was fought under the auspices of the UN
ONLY because the Soviet Union was boycotting the body because of the US led
effort to block Mao Zedong's People's Republic of China from taking the seat
of Jiang Jieshi's government on Taiwan. Had the USSR been present, then they
would have vetoed the resolution endorsing action against the North Koreans.
(Yes, this is obvious, given that the Soviets were bankrolling the North
Koreans and North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung actually went to Joseph Stalin
for permission to invade beforehand). So, my question would then be would you
now be criticizing President Truman's decision to save the South Koreans from
the tyranny of the North because he would have broken "international law"?
To the point about "illegally invading a country", I would offer that this
appears to be a phenomenon that is reserved by its critics for the United
States. Just to use Nixon's administration as an example, he was (and
continues to be) unfairly criticized for "illegal operations in Cambodia."
Now, the neutrality of Cambodia was established in the 1954 Geneva Accords,
an agreement that was not endorsed by the United States but was by the North
Vietnamese. Yet, the US is criticized for attacking the NORTH VIETNAMESE in
Cambodia, five years after the NVA began trampling the sovereignty of that
nation! If universal standards are not going to be held for the conduct of
ALL COUNTRIES, which they are not, then this concept is meaningless.
I would again say that I felt Lee answered your question on public opinion
well. It is not logical for the President of the United States to base his
decisions that will impact not only us now living but future generations by
how the wind is blowing in Peoria today. To use Nixon as an illustration, in
1971, 90 plus percent of the American public would not have known Chinese
Premier Zhou Enlai from a Sloppy Joe. So I don't think it particularly wise
for a President to engage in foreign policy decisions based on the mob
mentality of an (unfortunately) largely uninformed group. The public opposed
entering World War II until December 7th. They consistently opposed action in
Korea. Their judgements are constantly shifting and changing by what they see
in two minute soundbites on the evening news. Roosevelt, Truman, and Nixon
all deserve tremendous amounts of credit in those instances for guiding
public opinion, not being a slave to it.
In terms of your opinion of Bush's actions beginning a second Cold War, I'd
be curious if you would be willing to elaborate on them further. In terms of
with who and what dynamic you would foresee the world alliances taking.
"Glean from this question what you will. Undoubtedly I am against the war in
Iraq. However this does not by definition make me Anti American or Pro
Saddam, far from it."
I am not sure who this comment is addressed to. I at no point have accused
you of any of these charges. It is obvious that we disagree in regard to
action against Saddam Hussein. But it has always been my feeling that healthy
debate can occur on the topic even if two people's opinions are 180 degrees
apart.
Regards,
Max Plumm
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you
really make them think they'll hate you."
-Don
Marquis
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-Anatole France
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 06:05:57 MST