not a post about iraq

April 18, 2004 5:53 AM

just a few years ago, this nation was about to impeach its president. the crime under investigation: a few steamy moments in the oval office with an intern, and lying about it. these days, the man in that same office wages a war which produced over 10,000 deaths and cost 102 billion of taxpayer money to date, with clues by the dozen that the reasons given to the american people for fighting it were wrong and untruthful, and instead of making america a safer place, there are indications that it is doing quite the opposite. yet there is no word of impeachment, and the man stands a good chance to be re-elected. make war, not love - more guns, less porn - is a message that seems to resonate well with the american people.
posted by coyroy (31 comments total)

Clinton was impeached for Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury and Obstruction of Justice.
posted by hama7 at 6:04 AM on April 18, 2004

You're not suggesting by any chance that Bush is Bad, are you? Coyroy, no offense, but this isn't a very good post for any number of reasons - you're offering a polarizing subject that is only going to give us a flamewar, it's been done before, and the links are full of op-ed style articles that may or may not have real information. Your post may not be about Iraq, but we've had more than enough crap about Bush on the front page since the man got elected. In other words, this is nothing new. IMO.
posted by ashbury at 6:04 AM on April 18, 2004

don't be coy, roy!

how about answering the question, hama7?
posted by quonsar at 6:05 AM on April 18, 2004

Even though your question is doubtless going to be torn apart in the thread, I think it's a good one. I don't understand it either why consensual sex is worse than lying about a war, and letting our attacker get away because those resources are being used on an unrelated country.

(Not to mention the whole concentration camp - enemy combatant thing)
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 6:12 AM on April 18, 2004

How's that axe doing?
posted by leotrotsky at 6:18 AM on April 18, 2004

More about the Clinton impeachment.
posted by hama7 at 6:21 AM on April 18, 2004

Ashbury, why don't you just create the Metatalk little bitchfest directly with Seth instead of wasting space on the thread?

As far as the actual question, I think that any country where large segments of the voting population think that something like the Passion of Christ is three hours of "holy" family bonding while shreiking that their children are scarred for life for seeing Janet Jackson's tit for a split-second, is only being coherent in their bizarre world view when they vote for Bush.

I mean Bush lied in front of Congress during the SOTU, a federal crime, and you'll never convince the likes of Hama7 that he should be impeached. Just as long as he keeps killing, I guess. Oh and now that Ashcroft has put fighting terrorism on the backburner to go after the real danger to America, people fucking on video, I suppose that the Republicans can finally rest easy that their country is going in the right direction.
posted by sic at 6:24 AM on April 18, 2004

With due respect, and I do not like Bush, on what grounds is he to be impeached? That he wanted to invade Iraq because he knew they did not have WMD? He relied on intel. That Saddam was working with terrorists? His excuse: he relied on intel....After all, just about every person in Congress fully supported Bush. Should they all then be impeached?
The invasion was a huge and costly mistake. Blame the
Supreme Cunrt for making Bush the president.
posted by Postroad at 6:26 AM on April 18, 2004

How's that axe doing?

Don't look now, but I think it's buried in your skull.
Come on, how do you expect me to resist a straight line like that from somebody called leotrotsky!

I just hope Bush is de-elected before he can be impeached.
posted by languagehat at 6:27 AM on April 18, 2004

First of all, sic, there is no question. Where in the post do you see a question? What I see in that post is a statement that is fairly plain and obvious: Bush lied, military spending is through the roof, and the right is getting more right. What's new here? And what's the question?

Second, why should I go to MeTa when it looks as though you're gonna do it for me?
posted by ashbury at 6:34 AM on April 18, 2004

I mean Bush lied in front of Congress during the SOTU

A lie is saying something that you know to be false. Iraq had weapons because they were used to kill lots and lots of people. The question is, where are they? Syria, among other places. Many are under the sand in Iraq. Hussein not only supported terrorists, but would not do as he promised to after Gulf war one and now he is gone. That's no mistake.
posted by hama7 at 6:38 AM on April 18, 2004

hama7 - you can't tell us where the weapons are until somebody actually FINDS them, OK? Also, Bush's continued willful association of 9/11 with Iraq has gotten to the point where it's fair to say he is lying.
posted by pyramid termite at 6:46 AM on April 18, 2004

A lie is saying something that you know to be false. Iraq had weapons because they were used to kill lots and lots of people. The question is, where are they? Syria, among other places. Many are under the sand in Iraq. Hussein not only supported terrorists, but would not do as he promised to after Gulf war one and now he is gone. That's no mistake.

So I guess you would say his answers were "legally accurate," then?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:57 AM on April 18, 2004

Clinton lied under oath which is a crime. Impeachment in the face of a clear crime is I guess to be expected. For all his evil, GW has not been caught red handed in crime, at least not one recognizable as such by both Democrats and Republicans. I would dearly love to see GW take a fall, but impeachment for almost pure political gain (such as with Clinton) weakens our government. It was wrong against Clinton, and it would be wrong against GW. Rather, let's just vote him out of office this fall.
posted by caddis at 6:57 AM on April 18, 2004

Bush's continued willful association of 9/11 with Iraq has gotten to the point where it's fair to say he is lying.

Viewing the war in Iraq as part of the larger war on terrorism is not the same as accusing Iraq of being involved in 9/11. Bush has never said Saddam planned or knew of 9/11, that I'm aware of. He has talked about how we cannot defeat terrorism without confronting oppressive Middle Eastern governments that spawn hatred of the West.

The first country the United States invaded after Pearl Harbor was Morocco. We weren't accusing Morocco of involvement in Pearl Harbor.
posted by techgnollogic at 7:11 AM on April 18, 2004

This is a crappy post. A worthless piece of shit BiasFilter post. This is what personal blogs are for. And, no, as it happens, I'm not a Bush supporter—I also wish he would be impeached; or, better yet, die.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:13 AM on April 18, 2004

Being wrong about WMD because you rely on inaccurate intelligence is not the same as lying. Find a western government who did not believe Saddam had WMD prior to the invasion.
posted by techgnollogic at 7:13 AM on April 18, 2004

err, even if he lied, he was never under oath, and didn't violate that law. This dog won't bark.
posted by swerdloff at 7:16 AM on April 18, 2004

You're mangling that cliche on purpose, swerdloff? Or is there some Sherlock Holmes subtext I'm not picking up on?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:22 AM on April 18, 2004

GW has not been caught red handed in crime, at least not one recognizable as such by both Democrats and Republicans

caught red-handed? well, it's debatable. he certainly hasn't been investigated like Clinton was for much pettier stuff (alleged sexual harassment in the Paula Jones case vs waging a preemptive attack on false reasons?)
have, say, Paul Krugman investigate the shit out of Bush with subpoena power, sting operations and the like Ken Starr did, then come back and let's talk about it

as the always-reliable hamasheaven linked, the impeachment freak show started from the Paula Jones suit. it just snowballed into a fishing expedition into all things Clinton. using illegally-obtained evidence (the Tripp Tapes), the Republican lynch mob found the smoking cum stain it needed.
as I said, give a Democrat Ken Starr carte blanche, subpoena power, unlimited resources -- something bad will probably turn up against Bush, who knows. at the very least, we'll read very funny coke-and-booze Animal House stories instead of having to read about the Iraq slaughter every day. not to mention, the stories about Bush asking the FBI to lay off the Bin Ladens prior to 9-11 are really interesting, who knows what Special Prosecutor Krugman (too bad the statute expired, huh?) could find out about that

Iraq had weapons because they were used to kill lots and lots of people. The question is, where are they? Syria, among other places. Many are under the sand in Iraq.

who told ya that, Doug Feith?
heh.
maybe the Iraqis kind of used up all the arsenal Washington gave them to fight the ayatollahs, you got that right. as others said already, lay off the wmd claims -- they're not there. after a year of searches. why don't you use up your vacation time, go to Iraq and help them look for that pesky arsenal if you really think they're there?
;)
anyway, until somebody finds "immediate threat" WMD's, you guys should really avoid the subject.
I mean, all that blood should be enough to make you a bit red-faced. blood red.

_______________

but I think it's buried in your skull.

I thought the exact same thing!
also, did you know that Ramon Mercader's sister ended up marrying Vittorio De Sica? cool huh?
posted by matteo at 7:24 AM on April 18, 2004

Don't look now, but I think it's buried in your skull.

Actually, Trotsky was killed with an ice pick.

(Sorry, Sunday's my day to be pedantic.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:28 AM on April 18, 2004

Trotsky was killed with an ice pick.


no, with a pickaxe
I have a picture of it in front of me right now (I can't find it online, tho). it's a pickaxe.
posted by matteo at 7:45 AM on April 18, 2004

This is a crappy post. A worthless piece of shit BiasFilter post. This is what personal blogs are for. And, no, as it happens, I'm not a Bush supporter—I also wish he would be impeached; or, better yet, die.

Yes, yes, yes, same here, and yes-yes.
posted by stonerose at 8:02 AM on April 18, 2004

Couldn't someone bring a RICO case? They're certainly corrupt.
posted by amberglow at 8:08 AM on April 18, 2004

"...yet there is no word of impeachment, and the man stands a good chance to be re-elected." Clinton's blow job vs. Bush's skating right up to the edge of lying, live on national TV ( during a SOTU address, no less ) about just about every concievable issue of major national importance.....

Just goes to show ya, sex sells!
posted by troutfishing at 8:10 AM on April 18, 2004

"Being wrong about WMD because you rely on inaccurate intelligence is not the same as lying. Find a western government who did not believe Saddam had WMD prior to the invasion."

The freedom hating French and the evil Canadians are good examples of western members of the coalition of those who disagree, er, oh, I mean the coalition of the unwilling. They did, of course, supported the UN conducted search which also came up empty.
posted by juiceCake at 8:15 AM on April 18, 2004

Biasfilter.
posted by Rob1855 at 8:15 AM on April 18, 2004

According to Woodward's new book, the Administration took $700M that had been appropriated for Afghanistan and used it for Iraq war prep in late 2001. That violates the Constitution, no?
posted by aaronetc at 8:17 AM on April 18, 2004

As much as I'd like to see Bush impeached, I agree that impeaching presidents is not good for any democracy. So, in the spirit of Democracy --seeing as how Zapatero has officially taken over the Spanish government today, sending that disgraced little neo-francoist troll Aznar into permanent exile at Georgetown University-- I am also going to say that the best thing is to vote Bush out of office in November.

on preview: aaronetc, of course you would have to prove that Bush knowingly diverted funds and didn't just get confused by faulty budget intel....
posted by sic at 8:21 AM on April 18, 2004

Meanwhile, Violence in Iraq will get even worse, says Blair :

The warnings came as the commander of British troops in southern Iraq, Brig Nick Carter, admitted that he would be powerless to prevent the overthrow of Coalition forces if the Shia majority in Basra rose up in rebellion. Brig Carter, of the 20 Armoured Brigade, who has been in Iraq for four months, said British forces would stay in Basra with the consent of local Shia leaders, or not at all.

Last month, 14 British soldiers were injured in Basra, at least three seriously, when they came under attack from demonstrators armed with petrol bombs, rocks and a grenade.

"A crowd of 150,000 people at the gates of this barracks would be the end of this, as far as I'm concerned," Brig Carter said. "There would be absolutely nothing I could do about that."

posted by y2karl at 8:24 AM on April 18, 2004

When's Blair up for reelection? I'm betting he loses his job too.
posted by amberglow at 8:39 AM on April 18, 2004