"Dedicated to exposing the lies and impeachable offenses of George W. Bush"

Making the case for a Bush impeachment
The Register-Guard
By James McWilliams
January 3, 2006

In his Dec. 22 column, Jonah Goldberg baited the Democrats to try to impeach President Bush for his unwarranted surveillance of American citizens. Was Goldberg trying to forestall such an option, or was he focusing on surveillance to draw attention away from the more egregious and clearly impeachable offense: the grand deception leading to war?

The Bush administration still insists that the war makes America safer and preserves our freedom, that Iraq was a threat to the United States, and that Congress was privy to the same intelligence as the administration. It passes over in silence the preposterous claim of a nuclear threat and the absurd notion that the megalomaniacal but religiously modern Saddam Hussein was in league with the al-Qaeda fundamentalists.

Stating these points shouldn't be necessary, for staring us in the face is the evidence, so obvious that it hardly seems to register. I'm talking about the administration's famous shifts in justification, each change in position proof of disin- formation.

When weapons of mass destruction became too much of an embarrassment, Bush and company put forth the cocksure claim that Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda. When that didn't fly, they grasped at the most absurd reason of all: to bring democracy to Iraq. What could be more naïve than expecting Iraqis to embrace our "way of life" after we have bombed and killed their families and friends and caused so much suffering?

It is necessary to boil down the lies used to justify the war, because the White House continues to twist the truth. When Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., recently brought up the rush-to-war issue again, he touched a raw nerve. An outraged Vice President Dick Cheney blamed the Democrats for likewise voting for war - as if they had in equal measure led the charge - and were thus trying to change the historical record.

Is he aware that such a riposte implies the admission of culpability for an ill-advised and illegal adventure? How convenient of the Republicans to disregard their unprincipled exploitation of war as a test of patriotism.

And don't forget Karl Rove's recent attack, in June 2005, before New York State's conservative party: "Conservatives saw the savagery of the Sept. 11 attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the Sept. 11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

These are truly vicious words, relying on Americans' hazy recollection of the fact that after Sept. 11, the entire nation closed ranks behind the president to punish the Taliban. But we can certainly guess the reason why Rove said these words, morally indefensible words that cover up a huge cost in lives: to effectively confuse the right war in Afghanistan with the unnecessary bloodshed in Iraq.

The citizens of our country have been duped by the man they put their trust in. Yes, the majority of the electorate endorsed his war, but that doesn't lessen Bush's culpability. After the humiliation of Sept. 11, most Americans were eager to believe and were thus an easy mark for the president's disinformation - the success of every con is based on a desire to believe.

Waging war against the primitive tribal Taliban inadequately expressed their loss, frustration and rage. They were seized by the urge to strike back at Muslims in general.

Deliberately sown confusion may explain why no one considers impeachment for the correct reason: fomenting a war. It would be the next logical step against the man who deceived us so shamelessly, brought about economic hardship (America will have to sacrifice to pay for the war, already having cut funds for food stamps and school meals), made America and the world less safe (al-Qaeda how has the firm foothold in Iraq that it lacked before), and caused the deaths of many brave GIs and of thousands of innocent men, women and children of Iraq.

Why is no one talking about impeachment of the president for recklessly forging ahead to commit perhaps the greatest foreign policy blunder in our history? For what? For the sake of political gain, as his enormous boost in approval attested after the stage-managed "Mission Accomplished" photo-op.

We were certainly not hesitant to bring articles of impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" against President Bill Clinton. Without at all condoning Clinton's behavior, we should keep in perspective that his transgressions were misdemeanors by comparison to Bush's high crimes.

What has been outlined here as grounds for impeachment are to many people in other nations - with just as strong a hold, if not a stronger hold, on democracy - a reason to try Bush for war crimes.

James McWilliams is an emeritus professor of German at the University of Oregon.

The same commentators, editors, publishers newspapers, networks, cable channels and pundits who were upset with Bill Clinton also helped Bush lie to us about WMD and now remain silent about impeaching Bush.

Stating the obvious: they were wrong about impeaching Clinton, wrong about the fake scandals the GOP manufactured against him, wrong about tax cuts and surpluses, wrong about Bush being a good decent man, wrong about WMD, wrong about Iraqi links to terrorists, wrong about war in Iraq etc. Why do these people still have a job?