Home / Bush Not Impeached Yet?

Bush Not Impeached Yet?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

A government that supports a free nation only steps in when people are hurting (emotionally, physically, economically and whatnot) each other. Under Bush things like the Patriot Act take away your constitutional rights, and more importantly your individual, human rights.

More than any other president before him bush has pushed his personal agenda into congress. Hopefully his greed, his hate towards gays, his apparent love for war and killing, and his sinister dishonesty will not leave a lasting imprint on America.

No, my blog is not about politics, the underlying meaning of this post is philosophical.

The wonderful philosopher Kant argued that to find the true moral worth of something you did you must not look at the consequences of the action but the morals behind the action itself.

Now you may or may not have seen this comparison before, but allow me to lay it out for you the way I think it should be.

Clinton and Bush both lied. It is a world wide proven and accepted fact that Bush lied about the need for war in Iraq. It is also widely thought that it is not moral to lie. If everyone in the world lied the state of things would be very sorry indeed.

Now, I don’t know about you, but there’s a bell ringing here. Why hasn’t Bush been impeached? Why did he slip through the cracks.

Perhaps you don’t like Kant and won’t accept this rag on Bush. Would you rather expand your moral judgment on these two men?

Clinton screwed the intern.
Bush sent 432 Americans, 53 British, 17 Italians and one Polish, to death in the Iraq war as of November 25, 2003 (CNN.com). Also remember that over 10,000 Iraqis died by last July and tens of thousands more humans have lost their limbs or been injured.

Clinton apologized and created a national surplus.
Bush insists that we continue the war and has created record breaking deficits.

Get rid of the trash in the next election.

Powered by

About Bat Boy

  • Yeah, yeah, typical shallow generic and unsubstantiated pinko name calling. You all need to get some fresh material.

  • If you had an acceptable defence of bush I would proceed onto enviromental ethics and how bush is doing horrible things for our earth.

  • Last time I checked, Bush hasn’t done anything impeachable. Nobody has brought up any charges that I can think of. In the case of Clinton lying (while I STILL don’t think he should have been impeached) HE COMMITTED PERJURY! This post is really ignorant.

    “It is a world wide proven and accepted fact that bush lied about the need for war in Iraq.”

    This statement for example is pure unadulterated crap.

  • Joe

    I’ve noticed many attempts at satire at Blogcritics, but this is the superior effort so far.

    With the title alone the author is able to take a wry jab at the immaturity and impatience often displayed in political discourse today. Obviously, the “but things aren’t perfect right now!” mindset doesn’t get very far with bat boy.

    The demonstration of fatuous hyperbole and gross exaggerations serves as an excellent parody of what has come to pass as thoughtful political dialogue to many.

    I was particularly taken with how bat boy dragged Clinton into the discussion to highlight just how silly it is for people to dig up the past every time they want to avoid the current reality. This provides a nice illustration of the old “they just can’t get over it” syndrome that has become so pervasive.

    The line “It is a world wide proven and accepted fact that bush lied about the need for war in Iraq. It is also widely thought that it is not moral to lie.” was laugh out loud funny. It cuts right to the heart of the whole “Bush lied…” meme. Here bat boy is throwing down the gauntlet to those who would make gross generalizations. The assertion that it is, in fact, a world wide proven and accepted fact is a subtle exhibition of the ease of twisting of the facts.

    Particularly amusing was the way the author examines the oversimplification that is so often used as cudgel in modern discourse. The contrast between a former president screwing an intern, apologizing, and creating a surplus vice a numerical accounting of lives lost in Iraq, notwistanding the fact that the international members of the coalition were deployed on the order of their own leaders, not Bush, serves to point out how tenuous a grasp of the situation many people have.

    Hats off to bat boy on a satire well done.

  • Joe, your satirical statement deserves all the plaudits you mention.

  • Joe

    Indeed, that’s the great thing about satire!

  • Eric Olsen

    Whoa! The meta-parodic implications leave my head aswim.

  • Joe

    Yes, I like to think of myself as the Ouroboros of the Blogosphere

  • Eric Olsen

    Yes, but having swallowed one’s own tail, does one enter another universe that quivers between the seams of our own? And what of the role of digestion?

  • Joe

    WEll, I’d describe it more as oscillation than quivering, as for digestion, I have Blogcritics – Metamucil for the psyche.

  • Eric Olsen

    I was thinking more of the ontological ramifications of the digestion process upon the snake’s head.

  • Joe

    That’s the beauty of it, instead of having its head up its ass…

  • Eric Olsen

    Oroboros was also one of the first jam bands.

  • Joe I cant tell if you are trying to contradict me or just dont like my style.

    Im not a prolific writer and my Kant reference requires prior knowledge on the part of the reader.
    If you read Kant he tells you to universalize your maxim and if it doesnt sound good than you should lay off. If everyone lied the would would be a sorry place to live. If every president took away constitutional rights like bush than soon we would have none at all.
    What if every nation went to war against someone they felt threated by? Well I assure you we would have quite a few countries bombing our ass.
    CNN – Impeachable Offence?
    World Net Daily – Moral?
    World Net Daily – Lies

  • cjones

    Ouroboros starts with an O. I just added that to feel like I am an intelligent part of this blogversation.

  • Bat Boy – or whatever your name is:

    Why did you bother writing this? I suppose it could pass as an opinion piece, but it is completely devoid of facts or support.

    “It is a world wide proven and accepted fact that Bush lied about the need for war in Iraq.”

    Well, basically, no it isn’t. In case you haven’t read the polls, a large percentage of Americans supported the president, both before the war started, and since.

    Recently, reports have come out showing that Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein did have contacts prior to the war. Take a look at this

    I don’t know how reliable the source is, but there certainly is evidence that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein did, in fact, cooperate. Saddam also provided payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. So, it is really indisputable that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. I am not saying that he supported directly the 9/11 attacks, but he certainly did support terrorist efforts against the U.S. and our allies around the world.

    Officials in George H.W. Bush’s administration, Bill Clinton’s administration, and George W. Bush’s administration have all said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The latest report from David Kay said this: “Iraq’s WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.” You can read it here if you are interested in actual facts.

    I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like Bush lied to me.

    You know, it is certainly your right to dislike George Bush, but if you’re going to write an attack piece, you might try getting at least a few facts right. Your “analysis” is pathetic.

  • But he mentioned the name of an academic philosopher, so he must be really smart. I’m sure there’s some Profound Truth here that we’re just not smart enough to see.

  • Maybe I just articulated the point badly. Then again if you dont like Kants philosophy than you would not care for the argument anyway.

  • BB

    Ouch! Perhaps I can waylay this barbecue in a more proactive direction. Bat Boy in his own way has paid homage to our fallen soldiers so let us not forget the Canadians who were also killed in Afghanistan by so-called ‘friendly fire’.

  • Well, you didn’t make the point very well, but it was a dumb point even when you clarified it. Your premises about Bush were unfounded, and also your universalizing principle was poorly applied.

    Your business about Bush being a liar is unfounded. Now, being a politician and under incredible pressures from all directions, he’s going to spin and cut corners a bit. Keeping the temptation for politicians to do that down to a bare minimum is the main function of a free press.

    That is still not, however, the same as Clinton blatantly lying under oath in front of a grand jury, which is not even 1% of the lying that bastard did, much of it about things far more significant than a blowjob.

    I have not seen clear evidence of even ONE outright lie from Dubya. The main one the pinkos like to throw at him is the SOTU yellow cake business, but those words were absolutely true- and even carefully qualified if you think them through.

    Plus, this “universalizing the maxim” doesn’t really communicate any significant profound truth. What, it would suck if everybody lied all the time? Well, duh! That’s one of the reasons we didn’t elect Al Gore president.

    However, all lies are not equal, and a little bit of fibbing is not equivalent of everybody lying all the time. It’s a slippery slope, and you can lose credibility quickly. However, a little carefully placed prevarication can be one of the great greasers of politics and diplomacy.

    Again, your premise that Bush is taking away our civil rights just assumes the case in order to make a cheap shot. What constitutional rights has he taken away, exactly? Where is the line between legitimate law enforcement and national security versus infringing on the Bill of Rights? It’s not always entirely clear cut, and there is room for argument.

    I’m not totally thrilled with the Patriot Act. There are a few provisions that might need to be checked, but playing a little loose with the habeus corpus laws for terrorists does not equate to Bush or Ashcroft being jackbooted fascists.

    In any case, it’s just not intellectually credible to simply declare that Bush is destroying our civil liberties. He’s got a goddam deadly serious job to do, and it’s going to take more than a smirking college boy talking down from the sidelines to impress me.

    And it’s not just whether people decide to “feel” threatened, but whether they have legitimate grounds of actually being threatened. If we were whacking shitloads of people for no legitimate reason as Saddam has, or financing terrorism and offering bounties to terrorists as Saddam was doing openly, we would DESERVE to have other countries bombing us.

  • BB

    Well, I tried – so much for “waylaying”. Carry on with the barbecue.

  • Mmmm, roast bat…

    And I was certain I’d be having turkey for Thanksgiving. 😉

  • Anonymous Moderate

    Well, well, well. Pretty typical. Post anything critical of Bush, and the right-wing nutters come out of the woodwork to defame the critic and defend his ‘stewardship’ (cough, cough) of the country.

    FACT: Bush sold the Iraq war to the American public with two premises:

    1. Iraq was an imminent threat to American safety (mushroom cloud!! mushroom cloud!!).
    2. The ‘after the war’ stuff in Iraq would be pretty easy.

    FACT: We have now found out that neither of those two premises were true. Iraq had no WMDs. None. Period. Nada. Zilch. Now, after the war, a lot of Iraqis want us out — not just some little minority.

    It’s now pretty obvious to anyone who has info sources other than Fox News that Bush and his buddies had already decided to go to war, and cooked and falsified the data to support what they already wanted to do.

    Where I come from — Houston, Texas, incidentally — we call that ‘lying.’ And now we have guys over there dying every day because of that big lie.

    FACT: The only folks that seriously still try link Saddam and Al Qaeda are the uber-conservative-loonies like the the guys at the Weekly Standard and that Moony rag in Washington. Oh, and our vice-president, God bless his soul. No serious journalist or intelligence professional believes that now.

    Sure, Saddam supported Palestinian suicide bombers — just like our ‘friends’ the Saudis. Are we going to invade there next, you morons?

    I also have to note that one of the shrieking, reactionary, conservative dipshits up there wrote:

    “That’s one of the reasons we didn’t elect Al Gore president”

    What a completely fucking retarded thing to write. Just a reminder, lest you forget — we did not elect Bush, either, you fuckwit. He was installed by a single-vote on the Supreme Court.

    So, the reality of the situation is that Bush dragged this country into a totally unnecessary war, and as a result, his popularity is dropping. This war has not made us more safe, it has made us less safe. And wrapping Bush in the flag, and calling everyone who criticizes him a ‘pinko’ isn’t going to work forever.

    I’m a moderate, and I’m pissed at what Bush and his cabal of neocon-nutjobs are doing to our country. The guy is completely incompetent, and his circle of ‘advisors’ are totally out of control.

    BTW, correct me if I’m wrong, but Clinton was never found guilty of any wrongdoing — criminal, civil, or otherwise, right? He was acquitted in the Senate, right? You Clinton-haters are such a bunch of hypocrites. Clinton parsed his words carefully, and never actually out-and-out lied about anything — under oath or otherwise, and according to you, he’s this terrible prevaricator. But when your boy Bush does it — in the State of the Union, no less — it’s all fine and dandy.

    However simplistic and inappropriate the conservative pile-on up there may think it is, I think it’s a pretty useful comparison:

    Clinton cheated on his wife, and used a definition of ‘sex’ so narrow that a lot of people don’t agree with it.
    Bush exploited a national tragedy to start a completely unnecessary war with a country that was no threat to the US or US interests, based on falsified and trumped-up info.

  • First of all, “Anonymous Moderate” you lack credibility for basic honesty based even just on the lie that is your monicker. Every stitch of your response is pure pinko boilerplate. Simply labeling yourself “moderate” does not fool anyone.

    FACT: Bush sold the Iraq war to the American public with two premises:

    1. Iraq was an imminent threat to American safety (mushroom cloud!! mushroom cloud!!).
    2. The ‘after the war’ stuff in Iraq would be pretty easy.

    No, those aren’t facts. You just made those statements up wholecloth. In fact Dubya specifically did NOT claim that Iraq was an imminent threat. He said specifically that it was a “gathering” threat. That’s a significant difference.

    Also, no one in the administration said that the war or the aftermath would be a piece of cake. They just did not. You made that up.

    The fact that it might be difficult or expensive or cost some American lives does not mean that it shouldn’t have been done. If it was worth doing, it was worth paying for.

    Now, there is legitimate argument over whether the whole deal has been worth it, or whether we had a fair right to act. But your cheap lying and smug name calling does not constitute a legitimate counter argument.

    And your tired thing of Bush being “elected by a single vote on the Supreme Court” is simply one more big fat lie. Bush was elected because he got a majority of votes in the Electoral College. He won that vote because he got a few hundred more votes than Gore in Florida. They were recounted during and after the election several times. Deal with it.

    Even your reference to the Supreme Court vote is a lie. Bush v Gore was a 7-2 decision, not 5-4. But then you knew that.

    Please come back when you wish to discuss issues in an honest manner, as in without lying.

  • Joe

    Damn, AM has now just risen to the top of the depth chart for best satire. Keep up the good work guys.

  • Yeah, that AM’s a funny one.

  • Thanks AM I appreciate your support. but I want to point out that my post does not appeal to a wing.
    Al as much as you try to discredit people like me, you seem to have just as much heresay to develop your points.

    Your business about Bush being a liar is unfounded. Now, being a politician and under incredible pressures from all directions, he’s going to spin and cut corners a bit.

    If cutting corners takes a country to war than it certainly is a big deal. War of all things should be dealt with absolute honesty and credibility. Why did we have to go without the UN? Cutting that corner just makes our country more dishonest in the eyes of the world.

  • JR

    George W. Bush, July 2001: “I Love New York.”

    Actually Bush has been heard to say privately that he hates New York.

    George W. Bush, Jan. 10, 2002: “I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the-what they call the Governor’s Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994.”

    Actually Ken Lay indicates that they met at least as far back as when Bush’s father was still in the White House. What’s more remarkable is the dissembly in the second sentence – in fact Lay donated three times as much money to Bush’s gubernatorial campaign.

    George W. Bush, Oct. 5, 2002: “In return for the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time, we expect every child to be educated.”

    Actually, Bush had asked for a smaller increase than the 15.8% Congress approved for 2002. The previous year under Clinton the education budget was increased by 18.5%.

    George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

    The statement as phrased implies an assertion of the truth of the accusation; one “learns” things that are true. Whereas the administration had reason to doubt the truth of the claim since the CIA had called it into question the previous September. A properly hedged statement might have been something like “The British government BELIEVES…”

    George W. Bush, Jul. 14, 2003: “Well, the speech that I gave was cleared by the CIA. And, look, the thing that’s important to realize is that we’re constantly gathering data. Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts.”

    Four months previous does not meet the widely accepted definition of “subsequent”.

    George W. Bush, Apr. 26, 2003: “My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax.”

    The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found that 8.1 million taxpayers would recieve no tax cuts.

    George W. Bush, May 30, 2003: “We’ve found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations’ resolutions and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on.

    “But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong. We found them.”

    No comment needed.

    So it seems that the accusation that George W. Bush is a liar has some substance. It’s doubtful that he could be impeached just for lying, since he hasn’t lied under oath. But give him time. Two of the last three presidents have had the opportunity to testify under oath (one lied, the other couldn’t remember anything), and the current political landscape doesn’t bode well for an end to such legal proceedings.

  • JR

    Al Barger, Comment #20: “That is still not, however, the same as Clinton blatantly lying under oath in front of a grand jury, which is not even 1% of the lying that bastard did, much of it about things far more significant than a blowjob.”

    So presumably you can come up with at least 99 other lies told by Bill Clinton?

  • Joe

    So if Bush, does in fact love New York, as opposed to non-attributed reports, not withstanding that it’s possible to both love and hate New York, then JR is a liar? No, that means, he was just wrong, mistaken, or misinterpreted facts. There is a distinction. Is that lost on you?

  • I have said this once and I will say it again in relation to the Saddam to terrorist connection, THERE WILL NOT BE A BLATENTLY PROVABLE PAPER TRAIL. Saddam didn’t write checks to these people. He didn’t go eat at a public restaurant. Hell he didn’t go out and have coffee with a pair of sunglasses on.

    With all the money he was embezzling (against UN restrictions) from his convoluted oil trade, don’t you think he had plenty of surplus cash lying around? You don’t think any of that money was filtered toward terrorist resources including but not limited to Al Qaeda? If you are waiting for conclusive evidence like video or a paper trail then you are going to be waiting a long time.

    If you are walking through the woods and a tree is lying on its side, are you willing to believe that it fell, or are you going to assume it just grew laterally because you didn’t see it in the act of falling? Use some common sense people. Drop your agendas and be realistic.

  • JR

    He ought to know when he met Ken Lay, or how he feels about New York City (particularly after losing that city big time in the election eight months earlier). Yeah, he could forget, or feel differently from moment to moment. But at what point do you just excuse every lie ever told by anybody? Seems like one could excuse Clinton’s lie by that reasoning, no?

    I guess it all comes down to what you choose to believe about the guy. Hell, in a couple of those instances I think Bush really did believe what he said as he spoke; although I hesitate to call those “honest” mistakes because it seems to me it’s his responsibility to know what his tax plan does and to keep abreast of the intelligence reports behind a decision to go to war. But some of those are, as far as I’m concerned, outright lies. It may be unkind, but I don’t think my belief is “unfounded”.

  • Joe

    I’m not talking about excusing lies, I’m talking about labeling a person a liar for being wrong. Are you saying there is no evidence that would lead a reasonable person to reach the conclusions or make the decisions that Bush made?

  • Eric Olsen

    There are reasonable points to be made on both sides of this and they are being presented pretty well, but I would ask everyone involved to remember this: EVERYONE ON EARTH is a liar to a greater or lesser extent. Most of them are white lies, most of them may in fact be for the benefit of others (“No dear, your new hairdo does not look like shit in a blender.” “No, I don’t think you’re stupid, just distracted.”)

    So the point is not whether Bush and Clinton are liars – they are and so are you – it’s how those lies affect governmental policy, the conduct of official business, the motivation behind them, and to what degree they are calculated statements of untruth. There are mistakes, miscalculations, wishful thinking, selective emphasis, etc., some of which is dissembling but possibly none of which is lying.

    Nothing we know of that Bush has done, and nothing Clinton did come close to being impeachable offenses. The entire impeachment process against Clinton was grotesque political demagoguery of the worst kind, and was an egregious waste of time, effort, attention, and money. I spit on those who committed it, and I do the same for those who would do the same to Bush. If you don’t like him, vote against him in a year.

  • JR

    Joe: My answer to your question would have to be “no”. By which I mean there was such evidence in some cases.

    But I’m not sure that’s a reasonable standard. Does just any piece of evidence to support a conclusion make it reasonable to pass that conclusion off as the truth?

    I can go outside and look around and the evidence of my eyes indicates that the Earth is flat. In fact, that evidence led many reasonable people throughout history to conclude that the world is indeed flat. However if I told you the world was flat I would be lying, because I purport to be a reasonable person and as any reasonable person knows these days there is an overwhelming amount of contrary evidence to suggest the world is actually spherical.

  • JR

    I’m in agreement that pretty much everybody lies, not least presidents.

    I’m also sympathetic to those who consider George W. Bush’s, er, untruths to be a bit more serious than those of many (but not all) other presidents. On the other hand, were they impeachable offenses? It’s not against the law to lie. I might not mind seeing him impeached, but I really don’t see a strong enough case on that alone.

    At this point I’m satisfied to have my say next year.

  • Eric Olsen

    well-put, I am very full

  • mike


  • hey, i’m not a liar…

    i cooked a turkey today on a webber grill with hardwood charcoal.

    it was great.

    and that’s no lie!!

  • So Eric, you say that nothing Clinton did come close to being impeachable offenses

    Lying under oath in front of a federal grand jury numerous times is a felony. That in itself is a legitimately impeachable offense.

    Much more serious was the witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    That’s just the same kind of shit that brought Nixon down.

  • This isn’t justifying Clinton’s lying because that would be ridiculous. BUT, I must agree with Eric that the whole sexual witch hunt that the republicans put on Clinton was stupid. It was an embarassment for our nation and honestly what was the purpose of the whole charade? It was a disgusting display of the party system in this country.

  • Granted, it would have been far better to have impeached Clinton for the murders in Waco, or for selling us out to the Chinese communists for campaign contributions.

  • You sound about as extreme as the “pinkos” you call out each and every day.

  • Craig, in the immortal words of my hero Barry Goldwater, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

    I don’t criticize people simply for having views that might be labeled “extreme.” I criticize them for being dishonest or ill founded. Being extreme is fine, but you still have to be rational and justify what you’re saying.

  • Joe

    JR, for your flat earth analogy to hold water there should probably be some consideration as to intent, if you state the world is flat without knoweldge of the fact of the empirical proof against your assertion you are not lying, you are simply mistaken. For the analogy to be applicable to Iraq it would have to be an established fact that Iraq did not posess WMDs. I don’t think anyone could convincingly make that case prior to the invasion. Certainly there were plenty of people who held that opinion, but the capability to undeniably back the assertion with facts was absent.

  • JR

    Joe: I’m sorry, I didn’t mean that to be an analogy per se. I just wanted to point out that one convincing piece of evidence doesn’t always justify a conclusion.

    I’m reluctant to hold the uranium statement up as a clear cut example of a lie. Nor do I mean to criticize Bush’s decision to go to war, as I essentially agree with it. That case should probably be made by those more qualified to speak from the pacifist viewpoint.

    In my initial comment I just wanted to point out that, taken literally, the uranium statement was untrue. It’s also an instance where Bush was making the comment as an “authority” whose responsibility was to be as accurate as possible. In this case it was possible to be slightly more accurate.

    Did Bush believe Iraq had WMDs? Given Saddam’s past behavior, I certainly hope so! Although I’ve had my doubts about any recent nuclear weapons program, I’m not confident to this day that Saddam didn’t have chemical or biological weapons close at hand. So it’s possible that Bush deliberately fudged on the uranium line, but I’ll grant that it seems more likely he believed that one exactly as phrased.

  • Hey, lay off Bat Boy, at least he’s served in Iraq (and defended ‘murrica around the World) unlike Shrub, or any of the right-wing-nut-jobs and chicken-hawks posting here. Fewer chicken-hawks and more loud-mouthed schnooks, I say.

    How do I know this? I read it in the official organ of the truth The Weekly World News.

    And, importantly, this crucial story is being covered elsewhere, which has made the US media the shining beacon of truth and justice in the rest of the world:

    Sure enough, there on the cover was Saddam, his eyes bugged out in surprise and pain, as Bat Boy sinks his fangs into the dictator’s right shoulder.
    It is revealed on Page 25 that the cover illustration is an artist’s conception of what Saddam’s reaction might be, should Bat Boy get his teeth into the war. There’s also a photo of the bare-chested Bat Boy, striding past coalition soldiers who are firing at the enemy from a prone position. That’s one brave Bat Boy.
    So far, according to the story that accompanies the photos, Bat Boy has taken out three Iraqi T-55 tanks, wiped out seven machine gun nests and saved a dozen Iraqi children who were trapped on the battlefield.

  • It is very true. And it is my superior bat ears that help me most against my enemy. that and my ruthlessness that comes from my upbringing.

  • And it is my superior bat ears that help me most against my enemy

    Well beware, because it did Man Bat no good in the early 70s. In fact he wound up a parapelic. Ironic considering that in Hollywood, it was the fate of the actor who played Superman.

  • chubby politics

    The way in which you present your arguments makes for a blog that lacks cohesion and logic. I do, however, agree with you that some of the actions taken by Bush are impeachable. The war on Iraq was a clear deception and the amount of civilians killed there is so unforgivable it almost constitutes war-crimes. I think he should resign not only for legal reasons (there are plenty) or an almost Ted Kennedy-esque background, but because the policies he has enacted have been extremely damaging to our reputation in the rest of the world. He has handled a recession by augmenting the disparity between the rich and the poor, employing a brand of supply-side economics that was proven ineffective in the first years of the Reagan administration. The worst crime, perhaps, is the declared War on Terrorism. To declare war on an idea is to fail before the first battle has begun.

  • you put it well, better than I did. this was written under a very angered state of mind which is my excuse for not being logical or cohesive.

  • Shark


    “To declare war on an idea is to fail before the first battle has begun.”

  • boomcrashbaby

    Joe in comment 4 says: The contrast between a former president screwing an intern, vs. a numerical accounting of lives lost in Iraq….serves to point out how tenuous a grasp of the situation many people have.

    I agree. They aren’t really comparable. In one instance, a single person got screwed. In the other, millions did.

  • Kendra

    I agree in deed that Bush should be impeached but we need to get him good.We need to really see what laws Bush has broken so he can really go down. Bush also needs to admit that he did his country wrong.

  • Kendra

    The beef between 50 cent and Ja-Rule needs to just stop. That stuff is so old, their both great rappers so just give it up.

  • Bush went to war without seeking the approval or support from Congress, and then he fired and replaced anyone in Congress who would seek to bring accountability to his position. The Iraq War is not a war, it is a one-sided military invasion. Get that into your heads! Bush made it up, he’s there only for the domination of the oil wells. Oh how the truth hurts. This is what the Democrats are avoiding, this is why they’re in the minority. Until this issue is brought to the news headlines again, we are all going straight into the fire.

  • Bush cannot fire members of Congress, and the oil wells are in local Iraqi control as well as the money they generate. If you’re going to attack Bush maybe try to get your facts halfway straight.


  • BC

    Given the gift of retrospect I found reading the early comments concerning this blog morbidly laughable.

    It is nearly 2008 and nothing has been done.

    What do we do?

    Why hasn’t anything been done?