Scheer: Did Bush Lie to Us On Purpose?

Robert Scheer’s latest column isn’t the best work I’ve ever read from him, but it seemed like the kind of thing people would keep suggesting to me if I didn’t post it, so here you go: Did Bush deceive us in his rush to war? Nothing really new here, but a decent summing up. Here’s the money quote from the end of the piece:

Did our president knowingly deceive us in his rush to war?

If he did, and we are truly concerned about our own democracy, we would have to acknowledge that such an egregious abuse of power rises to the status of an impeachable offense.

I think impeachment talk is a distraction at this point. Yeah, on some level I’d agree that launching a war under false pretenses really ought to be considered a vastly more serious offense than, say, lying under oath about whether you got a blowjob from an intern in the Oval Office.

But precisely because it’s so much more serious an offense, I think we need to stay focused in terms of our response. We shouldn’t waste our time, energy, and credibility pushing for an impeachment that, realistically, is never going to happen. Instead, we need to be talking about how we’re going to defeat Bush in the 2004 election.

4 Responses to “Scheer: Did Bush Lie to Us On Purpose?”

  1. PA Says:

    I disagree. Even if the Republicans in the majority never

    allowed it to succeed. Since this war is going to be use

    in the next elections, it needs to be question. Even if

    it’s only good to open a public debate about it’s validity.

  2. John Callender Says:

    Oh, I totally agree that their needs to be a public debate about the war’s validity. I just don’t think using the I-word at this point is particularly helpful in that process.

  3. a_stupid_box Says:

    To support impeachment:

    To give up on impeaching someone just because you think it won’t happpen is like not bothering to discipline your oldest child because you know it won’t have any affect. The younger ones may be watching, just like future presidents are seeing this and realizing just how far they can go and rely on public apathy to get away with shit like this.

    On the other hand:

    There truly isn’t enough time to push an impeachment through. As John pointed out, the time and resources are better spent on rallying the public to vote against Bush in 2004.

    My conclusion:

    Attempt the impeachment, knowing full well it won’t go through. If nothing else, it’ll be bad publicity for Bush come the 2004 election and he’ll be easily toppled. It is hard enough as it is to defeat an incumbant, any little advantage would help — having a republican candidate testifying before the Supreme Court would be one hell of an advantage for the democrats and independants.

  4. Still waiting Says:

    How many more abuses are required?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.