“Walk on By” — Burt Bacharach, as sung by Dionne Warwick
I was walking from the shower to my locker at the gym, when I heard one man say to another, “Ah, they just wasting our money.”  I didn’t know, but I was guessing the comment concerned the impeachment hearing, playing on the TV in the locker room lounge area.
Usually, I’m glad to bestow my wisdom and insights on current events.  Some men seem to like my unsolicited comments on current events.  Some don’t.  Occasionally voices are raised.
I had tasks set out for myself that afternoon and really didn’t want to get into a discussion right then.  But, as I left, I thought about the comment I’d heard.  If I was on the right track, the man was telling his companion that there is a real cost to impeachment.  Had I tarried, I might have used the what about gambit, a distraction technique.  It’s simpler than delving into whether impeachment is valid for a President that withholds $391 million, allocated by the Congress, in order to obtain assistance from a foreign power in his re-election.  Trumpkins seem to favor what about ism, a favorite sort of distraction device.  Two can play that game.
What about, I imagined myself saying, the last impeachment this country went through?  Wasn’t that cost in excess of $40 million to impeach Clinton on a vote of 221 to 112 for lying about a sexual dalliance?  Bad behavior, yes.  Impeachable, I guess so, as it worked out.  Cause for removal from office, no; that didn’t happen.
It seems likely now that Republicans, many of whom hold a private level of antipathy toward Trump, will somehow find a way, to be “concerned” of Trump’s behavior, but not to the point of removing him.
My thinking is that Trump, by soliciting help from a foreign state to try to sway an American election is intolerable.  His oath of office is to the United States.  Putting self-interest ahead of that oath is a betrayal.  He can hug the flag all he wants.  He can pardon war criminals (most veterans I know find those pardons appalling; it serves to besmirch the honorable service of all military and veterans).
The President of the United States owes his highest loyalty to the United States, not to his self-interest.

7 Comments

Lynn Mandaville
December 7, 2019
Basura, I was tempted to make a snarky comment like "thank you, Captain Obvious!" But then I smacked myself on the forehead and told myself that to some Republicans your observations aren't obvious. I like your gentle approach to this lesson in what should be apparent to all. A president's allegiance is to the good old US of A, and anything else is a breach of his oath of office. (Our house is also distressed at the military pardons. The military code of conduct is nothing to take lightly.)
0
Reply
Don't Tread On Me
December 7, 2019
War criminals! Are you referencing the Navy Seal accused of killing an enemy? I know you were in Vietnam where you witnessed worse than that - how many Marines you were with were prosecuted for war crimes? How many shot the enemy point blank during or after capture? How many were thrown from helos? How many of your friends were boobytrapped and killed and yet you or others never got any "payback"? Its wonderful to sit in your ivory elite towers and pontificate how wars are to be done but you don't want know the specifics on how it's done. If politicians want to get us involved in wars, they should be on the front lines pulling triggers.
0
Reply
Lynn Mandaville
December 7, 2019
Just a quick question for you, DOTM. And it's purely for information's sake. Do you subscribe to the rules spelled out in the Geneva Convention? It would help me understand your comments regarding "payback" for friends lost in any war. The truth about war, to me, is that it is hell, and that the Geneva Convention establishes rules governing war, therefore, rules governing hell. Isn't that rather oxymoronic? Yet that is where we are. Men, almost exclusively, wage war, a form of terrorism in and of itself if you look at it in its purest form. The intent of war is to scare the living sh*t out of the enemy, soldiers and noncombatants alike. It is to instill the fear of torture, rape, and death at worst, and loss of one's entire civilization and way of life at best. If there can be a best. So in trying to delude themselves that they are not terrorists, but are humane in war, the powers that be decided to set a standard of behavior regarding the terrors they inflict upon their enemies. So which way should it be in war? Rules or no rules? And if rules, which ones do we enforce and which do we explain away as rationalized "payback?" Which transgressions do we pardon, and which do we turn our faces away from? How do we maintain a sense of morale for situations that are, for all intents and purposes, immoral? The whole hot mess is a slippery slope. We can't have it both ways, yet we try to eat our cake and have it, too. So what is it, DOTM? Geneva Convention or not?
0
Reply
Don't Tread On Me
December 7, 2019
Ms. MandAville, In your perfect world of boardgame war, all the combatants wear uniforms, march in a straight line, and only shoot at the enemy in retaliation to being attacked first. The wars of old have evolved into terrorism with not knowing your enemy nor when he may strike. Let's hope we never have to experience what that Navy Seal did, and his decision to act probably saved lives. The President did the right thing whatever you or anyone else thinks.
0
Reply
Lynn Mandaville
December 8, 2019
DOTM, you assume incorrectly. In my perfect world there is no war.
0
Reply
Basura
December 8, 2019
DTOM - I think you speak from ignorance. I hope so. I saw many horrors of war. I saw a guy we called Tunafish take one in the neck. Death was not instantaneous. My good friend and former GV roommate was hit with shrapnel. Another friend lost a testicle and use of his arm. Another friend was killed in action. I was hit multiple times, resulting in a leg fracture, two broken ribs, a sucking chest wound, and abdominal wound which generated an exploratory laparotomy and temporary colostomy. It was months before I could walk, or defecate normally. We fought hard. Most of us fought honorably. That some did not, does not excuse behavior that they knew was wrong. By assuming that all combat vets are war criminals, you insult the honorable service of the Marines and soldiers that conformed to the standards inculcated by the military. I did not do this out of some sort of religiosity. It was a matter of conscience. And I was not alone. I did not come to this from, as you say, an "ivory tower." My dad was in WWII. My uncles too. I as an 0311/0351; Marine rifleman/ anti-tank assaultman. I was with 2/9, 3rd MarDiv, up by the Z.
0
Reply
Basura
December 11, 2019
In my perfect world, too, there is not war.
0
Reply

Post your comment

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading