on evidence

A leading reason raised in opposing Bush's war on Iraq is that there has been no evidence presented that Iraq is doing all the nasty things that Bush says it's doing.  Many people around the world — even United States Senators (see for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2711253.stm ) — say that there is insufficient evidence to support Bush's claims.  Bush, meanwhile, relies on a logical fallacy (spec., Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): he is requiring Iraq to prove that there are not "weapons of mass destruction" under development there.

Would that, then, in attacking Bush's actions, people were as demanding of specifics and of evidence.  For example, there is a site on the Web taking petition signatures for the impeachment of Bush and some other officials of his administration.  At "Vote To Impeach", http://www.votetoimpeach.org/ , a set of "articles of impeachment" has been drawn up by Ramsey Clark.  However, the evidence presented on or referenced by the Vote To Impeach site (as of February 8, 2003, 11:30 PM, and most recently rechecked on March 11, 2003, 6:35 PM) is laughingly scarce.  Were similar accusations to be presented by Bush about a political leader, with the same dearth of evidence, they would be dismissed out of hand.

In a nonviolent movement for a change in the way people are governed, credibility is of major importance. It is difficult to persuade people of the validity of one's beliefs and arguments when such a one has already presented unresearched and unprovable — or, even worse, disprovable — assertions in the past.  In addition, the "bully pulpit" of the US Presidency often requires a higher standard of proof for the minds of US citizens to be able to believe purposeful wrongdoing on the part of the US President.

I think that it is wise, when accusing the US President of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" (US Const., Art. II, sect. 4), to make sure one's arguments for accusing him of same are in order and are readily understood and provable.  Else… why should anyone believe any other accusations one may make in the future?

I am not saying that Mr. Clark's accusations are necessarily incorrect; but I do say that they should be supported at least to the level of proof that is being required of Bush by those opposed to Bush's Iraq adventure.  I see no evidence being presented at the Vote To Impeach site which would convince me that the allegations against Bush are worthy of consideration by any Member of the House, let alone the Senate.