diet coke for breakfast


Sunday, June 08, 2003

Posted by Matthew
Now I don't want to go on off on a rant here, but:

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

Okay... this is just damn irresponsible journalism. This guy was apparently asked if "lying about war" was an impeachable offense. Well duh. He goes off on a rant about Bush lying and all the "false" things he said. But he completely ignores the rather obvious possibility (and most likely reality) that Dubya was acting on perfectly reasonable intelligence. Intelligence that would invariably change during a WAR. This whole article is just a democratic pundit's wet dream. Nobody is going to impeach Bush, for starters a republican congress wouldn't do it, but even if it was dem controlled and they chose to, all the Bush legal team would have to do is bring in the dump trucks of intel. we've collected on Iraq over the last twelve years that make all of Bush's statements/actions perfectly reasonable. I mean hello? This article borders on slander. While it's an editorial so I guess its jounalistically "okay", its being presented as a analytical law article. An article which is taking as its central argument that Bush lied. There has been absolutely no evidence that Bush or anyone in the administration lied. A case could be argued that they were partly wrong, or mistaken on some issues (which is only to be expected)... but not lied.

So then, thankfully, we have this:

Powell slams media on Iraq WMD reports

Everybody cheer with me: "Colin! Colin! Colin! Colin!" Just when I was resigned to believe Colin "overwheming force" Powell had gone permanently soft, he pulls a Rumsfeld and tells the media to STFU.


0 Comments:

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?