Reading notes

Markos presents a mass of Dave Sirota’s Googled evidence (from CAP) that, despite White House spokesman Scott McClellan’s claims to the contrary, the administration did use the adjective “imminent” in front of the word “threat” concerning Iraq multiple times, along with several others like “mortal threat,” “serious and mounting threat,” “immediate threat,” and “unique threat.”

As Markos assesses, “the administration made shit up, assuming that Iraq would have banned weapons to vindicate it. But it didn’t. It had nothing.”

“It turns out we were all wrong,” said David Kay, who resigned last week as head of the Iraq Survey Group. “That is most disturbing.”

Honestly, if justice means anything, then if it’s okay to impeach someone for lying about a blowjob, then it’s imperative to impeach someone for lying us into an unprovoked, unsubstantiated war in which 10,000+ of God’s children have died and roughly that many more are now maimed and wounded.

Doesn’t matter in the slightest to what degree Bush the person is responsible. If you’re in charge and a f*ckup of this magnitude occurs, you’re out. Period.

If Republicans won’t impeach for this, then they must apologize to the country for putting us through so much impeachment crap with Clinton over something of nearly infinitesimal significance relative to this. If they neither impeach Bush nor apologize for impeaching Clinton, then I think their credibility is shot through altogether. I take not one word they say without a boulder-size grain of salt.

Why not wait until November 2004/January 2005 and just drum ‘em out naturally? Well, if we impeach quickly now, think of the lives that could be saved, military men and women who’d be alive to see another Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s.

(No, I don’t really expect an impeachment to happen because (1) expecting just and honorable behavior from men like this is like waiting for roosters to lay eggs, and (2) a President Cheney would only amplify the nightmare.)