Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Impeach Pie, Anyone?
Remember how the House impeached Clinton for lying about his penis? And how Kenneth Starr spent over $40 million investigating it? Wowee. And, of course, nobody over there at National Review would even consider impeaching Bush for lying to get us in to a war (Shades of the Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?) -- because they're not really conservatives, but die-hard polemicists. From an editorial in the IHT:

Nearly two and a half years ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported on the nation's spy agencies' prewar failure to figure out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and promised to deliver a report on whether Bush and his team pressured the agencies to cherry-pick or hype evidence — or lied outright to Americans.

Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the Republican head of the intelligence panel, dragged out the second phase of the report, with the aim of killing it. We hope Rockefeller finishes the job.

That will require heavy lifting on the most important section, comparing the statements of administration officials to what they knew about the intelligence. Roberts insisted that it cover every public statement by any administration official or member of Congress dating back to 1991. What President Bill Clinton or Senator Hillary Clinton said about Iraq is irrelevant. What matters is what was said by Bush and Cheney — who ordered the invasion of Iraq — and by their aides. We hope Rockefeller's committee will sift through the hundreds of statements collected so far and focus on the ones that matter.

Unhappily, this is not an exhaustive list and there will be big fights over many of these issues. But it is not too late to take action. The midterm elections prove that despite all the posturing and fearmongering, the American public has not been blinded or deafened to what this country stands for and the need for truth.

Posted by aalkon at December 21, 2006 10:01 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1938

Comments

To cite the IHT while complaining about polemicists is beyond nervy... It's just insane.

> What President Bill Clinton or
> Senator Hillary Clinton said
> about Iraq is irrelevant.

Actually, that's not true.

Posted by: Crid at December 21, 2006 7:53 AM

As I've stated before ITMFA.

Posted by: Roger at December 21, 2006 8:29 AM

It's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Bush did or didn't lie. (Amy, from the car, outside the Paso Robles Inn.)

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 21, 2006 9:06 AM

The cost for Iraq and Afghanistan next year is estimated, at current troop levels, to be something like $170,000,000,000.00. Billions of these dollars disappear because there is no system to accurately determine proper accounting. Why would anyone at the top want this to end?

Posted by: eric, strollin down memory lane at December 21, 2006 9:14 AM

Roger- "In The Mother Fucking Americas", maybe?

Amy- Wheredat?

Eric- It's a heartless world of treachery and nuance. Good men cheat, lovers deceive, best friends connive! Trust no one!

Posted by: Crid at December 21, 2006 9:21 AM

Clinton didn't lie about his PENIS.

He lied under oath in reference to an adulterous laison he had with an intern - the lying under oath part is against the law, the adultery is against the law in most states, and diddling and intern is against most corporate and government policy!

None of us is perfect - we are all sinners. But you are a special kind of sinner, trying to hide fact with fiction in a public arena - while pretending to teach (?) people manners - inexcusable!

Posted by: John at December 21, 2006 9:27 AM

At the moment, I'm at a gas station in Los Alamos, California, but Der Fuhrer is keeping us to our timetable, so I'll have to comment more substantively later.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 21, 2006 10:23 AM

Thanks Amy- we got snow and ice here, I just walked in from plowing (with my beloved Chevy Tahoe SUV), and now I get to think of you zipping through wine country. Eberle and Justin have some nice Rhone style reds...

Posted by: eric, strollin down memory lane at December 21, 2006 10:26 AM

I really loathe Bush, but attempting to impeach him a silly idea for so many reasons. Here are a few:

-The process would take the rest of his term. He'll be gone in two years no matter what, and it seems dumb to spend Congress' on impeachment, instead of, I dunno, governing, when the effect of is substantively the same.

-President Cheney? Impeach him, too? President Pelosi? Is this what we want?

-Politically, it's a dumb move. Do we really want to see our elected officials engage in a nasty game of constitutional tit-for-tat?

-With small Democratic majorities, impeachment would be doomed to fail unless incredible malfeasance were discovered (then, all bets would be off, I think).

Bush's opponents now have investigative powers, so let the investigations proceed. If the man has truly committed crimes, he (and others, as applicable) can be charged with such at a later date (unless a successor pulls a Ford-style preemptive pardon). Right now, there are better things for everyone to be doing with their time. How about working on the dealing with the Iraq fiasco, improving the well-being of our overtaxed Army and Marines, health care, budget, immigration, etc.?

Posted by: justin case at December 21, 2006 11:51 AM

***$170,000,000,000.00***

Eric: After the so so so BILLIONS, you forgot the CENTS.

Posted by: Frania W. at December 21, 2006 12:15 PM

The impeachment process wouldn't end when Bush leaves office. If both houses of Congress vote to impeach the future former President Bush. He will do some jail time. President Johnson and Clinton didn't do any jail time, because the US Senate didn't vote to impeach. Nixon was pardoned before the impeachment process could begin by Ford.

Posted by: Joe at December 21, 2006 12:44 PM

Why wasn't it silly to impeach President Clinton?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 21, 2006 1:24 PM

Everything that Justin said, plus;

Congress and most of the American people were all too happy to oblige the hawks. An impeachment would really be nothing but scapegoating, though the Executive branch bears most of the responsibility. An impartial, international war crimes tribunal would be much more effective.

Posted by: eric at December 21, 2006 1:47 PM

I disagree Eric. This is a US problem and should be handled by the legislative and judiciary branches. Bush should be impeached for the sake of the country. It will send a proper message that this is a nation where the rule of law matters. Remember that expression 'the rule of law' was bandied about during the Clinton Impeachment process??? Will Bush be impeached? I doubt it.

Amy, it was silly and embarrassing to impeach Clinton. Now am I some kind of leftist? I was a former member of the Young Republicans, Young Americans for Freedom and the College Republicans, all their libertarian wings. In 1994, I helped get Congressman Rick Santorum elected to the US Senate as a minor campaign aid. Worked for various DC PACs and lobby groups for seven years. Moved back to Pennsylvania to get Santorum's opponent elected in 2006. Full circle, baby.

Posted by: Joe at December 21, 2006 2:07 PM

What laws do you suggest the president broke Joe? These were all judgement calls, and any good defense attorney would be able to argue that, in his heart of hearts, Dubya believed there were WMD's. As for this being a US problem, there are a few million Iraqis who might disagree with you.

Posted by: eric at December 21, 2006 2:35 PM

The genius of the Clinton Administration, as well as the drooling idiocy of the American public is well illustrated by the firm belief that sexual misconduct was the only thing Mr. Clinton committed.

Want to get away with anything, with respect to government? Just yell, "SEX!".

A second indication of abject stupidity is the idea that Mr. Bush is responsible for everything, good or bad. Hello? Read the damned Constitution, and see how that twit Senator and Congressman you have are shirking their plain duty!

Nobody wants to do that, because they naturally want to talk to "the manager!", not the "assistant (anything)". Ego demands it.

Posted by: Radwaste at December 21, 2006 2:36 PM

Amy - What do you do if it turns out that nobody lied to anyone, and all of the world's intelligence apparati are faulty (which is more likely than not)?

Do we impeach Bush for believing them?

Posted by: Brian at December 21, 2006 2:53 PM

> impartial, international war crimes tribunal

Arrrrgh!!!

Ugghhhnn. Trrrpp...PLEP! Gleepfoople, shitfuck. Christ.

Why are people so fascinated with the idea of international justice? Why would otherwise sane people in the richest context in human history presume that once they leave their own borders, the's a cleansing tide of wise and righteous humanity to wash away our troubles? WHAT IS THAT???!!

It's the other way around. The west, the United States in particular, is an island of sanity on a planet of unchecked wretchedness. If there was an 'impartial' collection of nations capable of judging criminals, we'd know by now. There's no such body.

Friends, fantasies don't count.

Posted by: Crid at December 21, 2006 3:11 PM

Regarding those "die-hard polemicists" at National Review...

Did you mean "partisan," Amy? You're quite a die-hard polemicist yourself, and I think that's a big part of this blog's charm.

Posted by: Lena at December 21, 2006 3:58 PM

The election is over, the fighting is done.
Your party lost; my party won.
Let the bickering cease and arguments pass.
I'll hug your elephant; you KISS MY ASS!

Posted by: Patrick at December 21, 2006 4:06 PM

Psst- Crid- I'll give you $10 if you go kiss Patrick's ass. $20.00 if you let us blindfold you before you pucker up!

Posted by: eric at December 21, 2006 4:40 PM

>>The west, the United States in particular, is an island of sanity on a planet of unchecked wretchedness.

Crid, you don't really believe that shit, do you?

> If there was an 'impartial' collection of nations capable of judging criminals, we'd know by now. There's no such body.

That is true. But I would not mind seeing the rest of the world condemn us for a completely foreseeable military/political/economic disaster, which might just humble the "We are God's #1" attitude.

This would be such a great night for all of us to be at the local pub...


PS- $170 billion in 2007... before the increases. Please send your check for about $566.66 for each family member next year to the IRS promptly.

Posted by: eric ((holiday's started w/ martinin's!) at December 21, 2006 6:59 PM

> you don't really believe that

> That is true

These lines are mutually contradictory.

More to the point, they're *teenaged*. They lean against each other to support this one yoogly idea: 'My life has problems, but somewhere out there there's a golden life that doesn't! And the reason that life is so good is that *policies* are in place to make people happy! If my place had those policies --or if Mom & Dad weren't so mean to me-- damnit, *I'd* be happy too!'

This is not true.

Those other places are ruled by syphilitic dictators... The most troublesome valleys within them are managed by the dictators' idiot nephews, who have the clap, trisomy, and a couple of shrewish, brittle ex-wives. These states nonetheless have representatives seated contentedly at the United Nations, men who --in their off hours-- park badly in Manhattan without penalty and chase supermodel tail with vials of fine Peruvian cocaine purchased at reduced rates. Achmed hangs with Paco, catch my drift?

> which might just humble the...

My heart broke tonight. Work with me here.

A few years ago in Slate there was an article that explained the appeal of supermarket tabloids to those who never made time for them. The theme is: Comeuppance! Once someone --for example, Britney without underpants-- begins to think too much of themselves, the tabloids are there to say that this time, they've *gone too far!*

As I was buying bananas, bleach cleanser and raisins at Von's an hour ago, I saw that the headline on US magazine was "Peace Talks!" between Angelina and Jennifer. Remembering what those two words meant to us thirty years ago, my heart sank. Every worthwhile idea can be dumbed down to the point where you no longer care about it.

The universality of human decency is just such an idea. Being a good guy takes luck and a tremendous amount of work; good government is icing on the cake. But the rest of the world doesn't even have *that*.

PS- I so want one of those martinis. Spending the holidays with a handsome young man for one of his first Christmasses is your own business. But let us know how it goes for him. I have this niece who was lucky to make it home to Indiana after visiting me in San Francisco because of the snow that's probably burning a hole in his Idaho memory.

Posted by: Crid at December 21, 2006 8:01 PM

Justin case writes: "-Politically, it's a dumb move. Do we really want to see our elected officials engage in a nasty game of constitutional tit-for-tat?"

The concern I have is that do we really want to let impeachable offenses go? Republicans dramatically lowered the standards for impeachment with Clinton (and they also dramatically lowered the standards by forwarding Bush). So, what kind of message are we sending? That only Republicans are allowed to pursue impeachment proceedings? That we only do impeachments for frivolous things, but nothing serious?

Posted by: Patrick at December 22, 2006 1:27 AM

Eric,

One of the laws George Bush broke was authorizing the NSA to eavesdrop on American citizens without court approval. Many constitutional law expersts agree that it is considered an impeachable offense. Martin Garbus, Jonathan Turley, Bruce Fein (former Reagan appointee at DOJ) and Christopher Pyle have been interviewed in print and television on how the POTUS has violated the law.

The problem is the country lacks the will to impeach a President for a real criminal offense.

Posted by: Joe at December 22, 2006 6:29 AM

Crid- thanks for asking. D is the center of our world now, and I coldn't imagine life without him. (Two years ago I had the same feeling about kids as Amy expresses.) He got a Newfoundland mutt puppy for Christmas and is happy and healthy. He has an amazing sense of humor, like the other day when we were at Costco and he kept saying "nice butt!" to everyone we walked by. I hope you and yours have a great holiday season.

Posted by: eric at December 22, 2006 8:39 AM

I know I'm a little late with this, but ITMFA stands for Impeach The Mother Fucker, Already. It's a spinoff from DTMFA which stands for Dump The ... You get the idea. See Dan Savage of the OC and LA weekly, who writes a sex advice column that is frequently hilarious. Amy, if you don't read him already, give him a try. He's right up your alley, and there is absolutely no pun intended.

Posted by: christina at December 22, 2006 9:19 AM

Leave a comment