Previous month:
October 2005
Next month:
December 2005

November 2005

Will Democrats dare to impeach Bush?

Link: Instapundit.com.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's national security adviser defended the administration Sunday against accusations that it misled the nation about the need for war with Iraq as Democrats stepped up their attacks on the president's candor.

Stephen Hadley told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that those claims were "flat wrong."

"We need to put this debate behind us," he said. "It's unfair to the country. It's unfair to the men and women in uniform risking their lives to make this country safe." . . .

Hadley said the intelligence Bush used for those arguments "was roughly the same intelligence that the Clinton administration saw."

"They drew the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a threat to peace, that he had weapons of mass destruction. They acted against him militarily in 1998," Hadley said, referring to the administration of Bill Clinton, a Democrat.


If the Democrats really believe in the "Bush lied" theory, why don't they call for impeachment of George Bush? Remember, they are accusing a sitting President of misleading and then rushing the country into an "unnecessary" war against Saddam Hussein! According to them, this unnecessary war has caused the deaths of thousandas of American soldiers and endangered the future security of the country. If they believe the charge to be true, isn't it is their duty to the country and the people to impeach the President? If they are not serious about what the accusations they are making, then people can question their patriotism. How else would you charaterize casually accusing sitting President of lying and misleading the country into a war, right in the middle of it?

Dems cannot say that are avoiding impeachment proceeding because of GOP majority in the Congress. If you are really serious about bringing country's attention to the "lies" of the President, they ought to follow through irrespective of the consequences.

I think President Bush should challenge Dems to impeach him. It is much easier to make baseless charges through media and speeches. They won't bring the impeachment against President Bush because they know they are just playing politics. Even if they do bring impeachment proceedings, it will give the President and the GOP an opportunity and forum to bring out all the relevant statements made by Dems against Saddam Hussein and in support of the war. President should ask them to follow through on their accusations and expose them for what they are: liars!


The nature of Govt regulations

Ravikiran has an absolutely wonderful post on problems with govt. regulations.
Link: The Examined Life � Blog Archive � Most blogs are terrible.

That may be the cynical answer, but this is true even if the government weren’t corrupt. Applying for permissions, filling out forms etc. are a chore and act as a deterrent even when there is no bribing involved. ...


Regulations have a tendency to increase. This happens for four reasons. One is government officials’ own desire to increase their power and intrude more. The second is that once you have regulations, the quality of blogs will become the government’s responsibility. Which means that everytime there is a failure of regulation, the public demands to know how it is possible that the one bad blog snuck through inspite of the regulations. The government’s usual answer to that is to increase regulations. The third is that the more regulations you have, it gets progressively tougher to keep the regulations fair, which means that it is impossible to satisfy everyone. ...
The demands for fairness from different groups end up obliging the government to add more regulations in a futile attempt to satisfy them. The fourth reason is that to prevent abuse of discretionary power by lower level officials, regulations start getting more and more detailed. When this happens corruption at the lower levels of the bureaucracy may reduce because the corruption shifts to the regulation-making process (see the USA, for example).

What is really frustrating to me is that inspite of such a terrible track record many people continue to support government regulations. And my impression is that people support government regulation for reasons other than their immediate self-interests. For example, all the people that I talked to opposed unlicensed cabs inspite of the fact that it will lower the cab fares.


The nature of Govt regulations

Ravikiran has an absolutely wonderful post on problems with govt. regulations.
Link: The Examined Life � Blog Archive � Most blogs are terrible.

That may be the cynical answer, but this is true even if the government weren’t corrupt. Applying for permissions, filling out forms etc. are a chore and act as a deterrent even when there is no bribing involved. ...


Regulations have a tendency to increase. This happens for four reasons. One is government officials’ own desire to increase their power and intrude more. The second is that once you have regulations, the quality of blogs will become the government’s responsibility. Which means that everytime there is a failure of regulation, the public demands to know how it is possible that the one bad blog snuck through inspite of the regulations. The government’s usual answer to that is to increase regulations. The third is that the more regulations you have, it gets progressively tougher to keep the regulations fair, which means that it is impossible to satisfy everyone. ...
The demands for fairness from different groups end up obliging the government to add more regulations in a futile attempt to satisfy them. The fourth reason is that to prevent abuse of discretionary power by lower level officials, regulations start getting more and more detailed. When this happens corruption at the lower levels of the bureaucracy may reduce because the corruption shifts to the regulation-making process (see the USA, for example).

What is really frustrating to me is that inspite of such a terrible track record many people continue to support government regulations. And my impression is that people support government regulation for reasons other than their immediate self-interests. For example, all the people that I talked to opposed unlicensed cabs inspite of the fact that it will lower the cab fares.