Raise your hand if you’ve heard Bush insist that the right thing to do in Iraq is to “stay the course.”
Now everybody put your hands down, because according to him, he’s “never been ’stay the course.’” Kudos to ThinkProgress for assembling a short list of instances that directly contradict Bush’s denial. At this point, I’m simply aghast at this man’s audacity. Does he actually think the American public is that stupid?
I find it ironic that, here in the United States, our representatives are doing a decidedly poor job of actually representing public opinion. For example, eighty-six percent of Americans disbelieve some aspect of the 9/11 Commission Report — but there is clearly no organized effort by our Representatives to open a new investigation. (Why did Congress spend more than ten times as much money investigating Bill Clinton than they did 9/11? I can’t ask that question enough.)
Three-quarters of Americans think it is time for the United States to leave Iraq — that is, they think we have “done enough” and that it is time for the Iraqis to start ’stepping up’ and taking care of their own country. And that’s a Fox News poll.
A majority of the Americans think Congress should impeach President Bush if it can be shown he deliberately misled the nation into the Iraq war. And: fifty-eight percent of Americans actually do believe Bush misled us into war. (Which means five percent somewhere believe he misled us, but that Congress should not investigate him.)
Why are none of these thoughts mirrored by the very people elected to represent the public opinion?
The point was made that lying to the public is an Impeachable offense, and one brought against Nixon. It’s certainly lamentable and morally reprehensible, but I don’t know if it’s a high crime or misdemeanor, as the Constitution specifies. Nevertheless, Nixon lied about the Watergate break-in, as well as invading Cambodia and the death toll figures for Vietnam.
Bush has lied to the public on several occasions – “I didn’t think anyone anticipated the levies would break,” and “We do not torture,” and “Anytime you hear anyone talking about wiretapping, we’re getting a warrant” – but I think stronger charges to bring would concern the actual illegal programs or gross incompetence Bush was attempting to hide in each of those instances. Namely, appointing a horse judge as FEMA Chief and then congratulating him for doing “a heck of a job;” outsourcing interrogation to private unaccountable civilians and condoning their wanton abuses of human rights; blatantly overstepping Executive bounds and ignoring procedures already in place for wiretapping…
Fifty-three percent of Americans want Congress to Impeach Bush if it can be shown that he deliberately mislead the public into war. That poll is pretty old. I would guess the number has only gone up as the situation has worsened. If only we lived in a proportionally represented democracy, it’s possible we would see some action on Congress’ part. Why did Congress spend forty million dollars to investigate Clinton?
There is no question that Bush has lied to the public a number of times, about very serious issues.
“Now, when the President does something, that means that it is not illegal.” –Richard Nixon
Bush’s actions imply that he holds the same belief.
The New York Times is reporting today on a leaked intelligence report which confirms what we all (on the Left) already knew: that the war in Iraq has decidedly exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, international terrorism. The report, detailed to the Times by twelve government employees, all talking under condition of anonymity, is the work of sixteen separate administration intelligence agencies.
Two comments: First of all, I laud the Times for reporting this. Despite the fact the report was Classified information (highly classified, almost certainly), it’s of dire importance that the American people know they are being decieved by their leadership. (Additionally, the details leaked are entirely vague and nonthreatening to “national security.” All that has come to light is that the administration has made a grave mistake, and these several separate agencies all know it. The article leaks no security secrets, or anything that would be aiding the enemy — as I suspect Bush will claim while denouncing our free press.)
Bush and his cronies have long portrayed the war in a highly favorable light, through rose-colored glasses, and have refused to acknowledge any regrets or anything they would do differently, had they another chance.
My second point is that the confirmation of our fears is somewhat bittersweet. We on the left undoubtedly feel the shameful joy of being vindicated in our shouts of “Told you so,” but it is unfortunate we had to be right about a claim with such dire consequences. The world, it appears, has indeed been stirred to action, the opposite action we were hoping for. Much of the Muslim world is united against us, because of our foreign policy.
Now it’s no secret, and the administration will have a tough time explaining this one away. Sixteen separate American spy agencies have come to a “unanimous” conclusion, as the Times put it. The war, meant to combat terrorism — indeed, “taking the war to the enemy” — has been a colossal disaster, a mistake costing hundreds of thousands of civilian lives and worsening the problem it sought to alleviate. And the administration has no regrets.
The recent admission of the existence of CIA Black Sites — secret prisons — is sweet and sour. It is refreshing that the President will, after he has come around, tell the truth. The reverse, however, also holds — to come clean, he has to have at first lied.
(Add it to the laundry list of misleading or blatantly false statements: Iraq and 9/11, Katrina and the levees, NSA wiretapping, “We do not torture,” etc.)
Still, the President came down in defense of the prisons, saying they are ‘necessary tools’ in the war on terror. Are secret prisons necessary tools in the war on crime here at home? What advantage to secret sites have?
Let us deal in extremes for a moment: Which is more effective: building a monolithic and oppressive structure on a hilltop that proclaims, “If you attack us, you will go there,” or conducting our war and quietly shuffling off the enemy combatants, under cover of darkness and without a nod to their whereabouts to somewhere underground and ignored? Granted, it may be more ominous for the enemy to realize that they will be hidden and their wellbeing unbeknownst to the outside world, but I insist that, as with criminals at home, it’s more effective for terrorists to have prisons to look forward to.
But that’s okay, our administration has done both — with Abu Ghraib as a regrettably all-too-visible prison, and now our Black Sites are in the open as well. Both sides of this coin — the visible and the invisible were executed poorly by the administration: although the latter should have never been attempted, the former was an exercise in gross abuse of power.
Although it is refreshing for the President to come clean, it is still unfortunate to have had this situation to own up to.
From Democrat John Conyers, D-MI: “The laws implicated by the Administration’s actions include federal laws against making false statements to congress [sic]; federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other government employees; Executive Orders concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence; federal regulations and ethical requirements governing conflicts of interest; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; communications privacy laws; the National Security Act; and the Fourth Amendment.”
As many as 26 statutes, say the Democrats, may have been violated by the Administration. The full report comes later this year, a continuation of last year’s “A Constitution in Crisis.” Who knows, if the Democrats regain the House, all it takes is a simple majority to impeach. Hooray for our side.
I think that the Downing Street Memo pretty much seals the deal for Bush. It’s a shame we didn’t hear more about it here in the States. But because he still has Congress in his favor, and he hasn’t lied about any personal sexcapades, he hasn’t warranted a 40 million dollar investigation and a subsequent impeachment trial.
It’s odd, though, that when 50% of the public agree with the question, “If President Bush intentionally misled the public about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, then Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment,” and while the disapproval rating has been sitting pretty over 50%, our Representatives don’t seem to be very representative. I wish we would see more serious talk about these lies…
Maybe after the mid-term elections everything will be all better.
