Bob Graham, in what can be described as nothing more than an effort to gain exposure (“Look at me! Look at me! I am running for President.”), is now charging forward with an impeachment option:
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham said on Thursday there were grounds to impeach President Bush (news – web sites) if he was found to have led America to war under false pretenses.
While Graham did not call for Bush’s impeachment, he said if the president lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq (news – web sites) it would be “more serious” than former President Bill Clinton (news – web sites)’s lie under oath about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
One problem. Clinton lied. Under oath. Bush didn’t. But that isn;t the real goal- the real push is to simply damage Bush- hurt his credibility, taint him, and weaken him for election.
“If in fact we went to war under false pretenses that is a very serious charge,” Graham, the senior U.S. senator from Florida, told reporters in New Hampshire.
No shit. Please make that charge. Pretty please.
“If the standard of impeachment is the one the House Republicans used against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard,” he said.
There is no standard for impeachment- impeachment is essentially whatever the House says it is. The House is Republican.
Fredrik Nyman
At this point it seems pretty clear that the guerillas in Iraq are hoping for Somalia 2.0; that the casualties will cause the US to lose faith, give up, and leave Iraq to its fate.
The Dems no doubt know it.
So why are they — especially those who aspire for the presidency — giving our enemies aid and comfort, giving them hope that their strategy will succeed.
Listening to the Dems, it seems like they’re only interested in undermining Bush and delegitimizing the Iraq war.
Their condemnations of Bush are far more forceful than anything they ever said — and will ever say — about the 9/11 hijackers and their ilk.
So what, if anything, are the D presidential candidates willing to defend and fight for, other than bringing back Saddam?
Andrew Lazarus
To the best of my knowledge, all of the Democratic candidates supported the anti-Taliban war. And as for bringing back Saddam, is your brain really so small that it doesn’t see a difference between bringin back Saddam and opposition to the new doctrine of preemptive attack, especially when based on wholly false pretenses?
Do you think the Republican’s who criticized FDR’s wartime administration (and they did, MUCH MORE VEHEMENTLY THAN TODAY’S DEMOCRATS) were rooting for Hitler and Tojo?
The entire Bush Administration is a sequence of lies, from the hyped WMD hoax to the budget mess. (March 2002: deficit $80B, surplus returning in 2004.) Finally, finally, the Democrats and the general wisdom are catching on. So why should anyone support Bush’s latest departure from Planet Earth, in his belief that our postwar Iraq plans are workable? (Does anyone even know where Chalabi IS?)
DANEgerus
Isn’t Dubya about 78 blow jobs from an Intern, and about 22 female accusers of harassment short of that impeachment standard?
But you’re right… Clinton deserves the credit for a balanced budget passed by (R)’s he vetoed twice… yeah… he was really fiscally responsible…
Speaking of FDR, in WWII, after Pearl Harbor, we ran some deficits too… then in post war it was the Marshall plan that caused some deficits… those weren’t a ‘departure from Planet Earth’ were they?
So if your going to engage in ad hominem attacks like ‘is your brain so small’ at least read a book that isn’t written by some revisionist lefty…
That’s the whole problem with the Donks… they attack based on lies without any alternative solutions… wars over, get over it, talk about tomorrow…
Oh… and Gore so lost.
Dodd
False pretenses?!? Not according to Graham himself: “What we’re concerned about with Iraq is its intention and capabilities to develop weapons of mass destruction, and the merger of that capability with terrorist groups, that is the ultimate nightmare scenario.” – Senator Bob Graham (member of the Senate Intelligence Committee) 6/23/02
Noel
Impeachment…now there’s a sure-fire winning issue for Graham.
They’ve all gone nuts. Remarkable.
Andrew Lazarus
Yeah, but the Iraq War is “only” costing us $48B a year, unlike World War Two. Which means it’s only responsible for about 11% of the budget deficit. And FDR didn’t PRETEND that the budget would be in balance. And FDR realized that the government, needing every penny for homeland security, raised taxes to record levels.
I know what you’re thinking. “FDR, that Donkey Fool, if he had just put through a tax cut, Hitler and Tojo would have pissed their pants and surrendered.”
Now, would you like to substantiate your claims that the Democrats are more liberal about Osama than they are about Bush? Bush is a master politician, I grant him that, who figured out how to use lies about National Security to fragment the Democrats just in time for the 2002 Elections. The patriotic support that you’re still giving him (all his macho talk is a bluff, remember where he was when called to the colors) was to cancel out the political damage from his OTHER lies, about the economy. But, all of a sudden, he seems to have gone to the well once too often.
Dodd
I found another one: “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction…. I think we have compelling evidence, both from technical sources and from human sources…. I have seen enough evidence. I don