Except for the fact that they AREN’T the same. The group which orchestrated 9/11 is al Qaida, the one headed by Osama bin Laden. One of the groups which is part of a multi-lateral civil war in Iraq is called al Qaida in Iraq, a homegrown terrorist group with dubious ties to al Qaida proper which only rebranded itself al Qaida after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And of course the majority of the people who are bombing innocent people in Iraq are Sunni and Shiite militias, not to mention elements of the Iraqi army who are really members of those militias.“The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September 11,” [President Bush] said. “That’s why what happens in Iraq matters to security here at home.”
In other words, this is what you would call… what is it now? Oh yes, a lie. The same kind of lie this administration trotted out to make us believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 so that they could launch an immoral preemptive war. The same kind of lie which was used to convince us that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were more menacing than they actually were (which, given that they were non-existent, weren’t very menacing at all).
And you wonder why he has a twenty-six percent approval rating?
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow: “Does this send a signal that the United States is divided on the key element of success in Iraq?”
No, Tony, the country is united against your boss’ plan to escalate the war. See, he is a uniter, not a divider!
Hilzoy, filling in for Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly’s blog, believes the revelation that the President (allegedly) broke the law by ordering warrantless wiretaps is grounds for impeachment:
But I have a high bar, not a nonexistent one. And for a President to order violations of the law meets my criteria for impeachment. This is exactly what got Nixon in trouble: he ordered his subordinates to obstruct justice. To the extent that the two cases differ, the differences make what Bush did worse: after all, it’s not as though warrants are hard to get, or the law makes no provision for emergencies. Bush could have followed the law had he wanted to. He chose to set it aside.
Read the whole post to hear the case for impeachment. Personally, I suspect my bar for impeachment was crossed when the President decided to lie to Congress and the American people about the justification for going to war in Iraq. And when the administration authorized torture. And when members of his administration (almost certainly with his knowledge) decided to out Valerie Plame.
But actively subverting the constitution he is sworn to protect seems to be easier to prove, and pretty much subsumes all of the other grounds for impeachment in any case.
That being said, IANAL, nor a constitutional scholar, and at this point these are just allegations. So we’ll have to wait and see whether this rises to the level of an impeachable offense.
Of course, with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, I guess the point is moot until at least 2006 anyway.
And finally, the thing that gives me the most pause is this: President Cheney.
Instead of taking responsibility for the mistakes which led us into Iraq in the first place, Mr. Bush has decided instead to do what he does best - attack:
Faced with a bleak public mood about Iraq and stung by Democratic accusations that he led the nation into war on false pretenses, President Bush is beginning a new effort to shore up his credibility and cast his critics as hypocrites.
The problem is this: there’s only one person in this country who can order our troops into battle. There’s only one person who was responsible for laying out the (false) case for war. And that’s the President. He may not like this very much, but the buck DOES stop with him.
Is it any wonder that people don’t trust him when he continually tries to pass it?
Okay, so maybe George Bush only strongly dislikes the poor, at least when he’s under political pressure to not hate them:
Under pressure from a suprisingly unanimous and steadfast coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans - moderate Republicans! - the White House crumbled today and agreed to reinstate the Davis-Bacon Act for construction projects along the Gulf Coast.
Via Kevin Drum at Political Animal.
One of the reasons I went into my blogging funk for the past several months was the impending doom which was the Bush re-election. Fortunately, to this point, Bush has proven that his re-election was not a harbringer of doom, but rather of incompetence.
Not to say that this administration’s incompetence hasn’t done some very bad things for the country. We’re still stuck in a quagmire in Iraq with no hopes of getting out. Katrina was so badly mismanaged that undoubtedly hundreds more people died than had to, and tens of thousands suffered significantly more than they should have.
And there have been some rather “doomy” components to this administration - the bankruptcy bill threatens to plunge thousands of people into permanent poverty due to things such as unforseen medical expenses. We are likely to have two new Supreme Court justices (we already have one) who will sign-off on the President’s view that he (and his successors) become virtual emperors in time of war. And then there’s the deficit - it isn’t going away any time soon.
But all in all, if I would have been told that Bush would have been defeated on Social Security, have his tax-cut agenda put on the backburner, have poll numbers in the upper 30s, be on the verge of having most of his party’s top officials indicted, and thereby be a virtual lame duck less than a year into his second term, I suspect I would have been overjoyed last November.
For now, I’m just relieved, and hope that 2006 will be the beginning of the end of the nightmare which has been the Bush Presidency.
Apparently for this administration, lying is a badge of honor.
George Tenet helped build the case which lied us into war. And Bush gave him a medal.
Now, John Bolton lied to Congress about a somewhat important investigation into whether an administration official broke a federal law, and he’s being given the U.N. ambassadorship.
Has this President no shame? Does our country have any hope of being taken seriously?
Political Wire: The Cook County Republican Party “is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to an indictment and conviction of” Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley (D), “whose administration has been buffeted by scandal,” the AP reports.
Can someone offer a reward for information leading to the impeachment of President Bush over his misleading us into war against Iraq?
On Kos, they have posted a translation of Bush’s VE day commemoration in the Netherlands. A couple of quotes make me, well, quite uneasy, considering that Mr. Bush repeatedly tells us all how much of a born again Christian he is:
In his speech at Margraten, Bush said Sunday that the most important lesson of World War II is that ‘no power is as strong as the power of freedom. There’s no soldier as strong as one who fights for freedom’.
Actually, I can name one power which is stronger: the Lord our God.
According to Bush, the free Europe after World War II was built on the courage and sacrifices of the soldiers who liberated the continent. The free world that Bush wants to leave as his legacy has been inspired by that. “We are at the service of the truth: freedom is the most important.” In the 21st century, according to Bush, Americans and Europeans work together to bring freedom to Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Middle East. “Freedom is the permanent hope of humanity”, said Bush.
Freedom is the permanent hope of humanity? Funny, but my theology teaches me that Jesus Christ is the permanent hope of humanity.
Now, I understand that Mr. Bush cannot, because of his position, preach the gospel, nor would I expect him to (Unlike the Christian right, I believe in the separation of church and state, after all). But that doesn’t mean that he should be uttering things that are completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus - at least if he’s serious about following Him.
