Clearing the Air
After the Fark debacle, I've taken to wandering the local blog scene, much more than I have in the past (I still have only so much energy to apply to writing much of anything, and I still don't see how folks do this full-time).

So, I ran into this thread, at Creative Loafing's site. And there was the "condition the loyal left for the upcoming impeachment fight" entry, with immediate garbage comment from some AM Repeater. So, I chimed in, and ended up summarizing my thoughts on our involvement in Iraq, and the Bush Administration, in a nutshell. I couldn't let all that go to waste, so I copied it here. :)

To the red repeater:

Speaking of Bills not taking care of business...

You forgot about the Kenya embassy bombing and that jetliner in New York. (I believe in "magic gas tanks" about as much as I do "magic bullets")

Also, that would be a blue dress in the Lewinsky case, IIRC. You may have confused that dress with The Little Black Dress(tm), which I really can't fault you for.

Monicagate showed that Bill Clinton did not have the balls to make our taliban pay for their intransigence. If he says "Yeah, what of it" instead of "I didn't have..." , the 700 Club's placeholder doesn't get close enough to flip the election in 2000, in spite of their use of the energy markets to shake the economic tree prior to that election.

Lack of open warfare against the Islamists, especially after multiple attacks, shows Bill Clinton did not have the balls to offend his party, as Tony Blair has done by supporting the current actions.

This is in not-so-much contrast to our current (P)resident, who, as I've mentioned above, is much more a placeholder than an actual president. Just as Clinton did not have the balls to offend "the left", Bush Jr. doesn't have the balls to be a real president.

Bush Jr. has acted as a conduit for our taliban, without objection, on nearly every domestic and international issue they want a say in, amounting to a government sponsoring of religious governments worldwide, and specifically the "Christian mission". But, on what basis? Blatant disregard for separation of church and state?

Actually, yes, but not just blatant disregard, disregard to the point of racketeering, and that's where the charges will come from. Follow the money trail here, people, both from the public coffers through friendly contracts, and election campaign "contributions."

Remember, our taliban think they're God's chosen, so things like embezzlement for the Mission aren't a big deal.

And, speaking of intellectually vetting material, you left this gem: "Had poor Bill been less interested in extramartial affairs and acted aggressively against terrorist after the first World Trade Center attack and the subsequent Cole attack..." Guess what? Clinton wasn't too busy setting up "Faith-based initiatives" (taxpayer-funded missionary work), and trying to pitch the idea of "peace through mutual theocracy" to that bunch of morlocks that run the Middle East, to adequately defend against the threat. But then, neither was Bush, because he's the placeholder for the folks that were.

Now that the AM repeater’s been dealt with, time to deal with this article.

What did cheney-Bush do? That whole preface is full of assumption that an action committed by the Administration is evil because it was committed by the Administration. In doing so, it misses some points. Picking through the mess:

1a) Deception for going into Iraq. Almost any president would have moved to depose Saddam Hussein, given the same starting conditions. It takes a bunch of cold-war republicans to lie about the reasons: (a) the oil-for-food program was being used to skirt the embargo, prop up Saddam, and maintain relations with friendly (mainly socialist) allies scattered around the world; (b) enforcing this nullified embargo and related no-fly zone involved permanent station in Saudi, which was used to motivate the Terrorists. we wanted out of Saudi, and had to choose between moving out (giving Saddam a second chance to take over correctly), and moving in (removing Saddam, knowing the likelihood of a resulting civil war).

1b) The war ended with the routing and capture of Saddam Hussein. It was then promptly thrown away by allowing an "islamic" constitution (ditto for Afghanistan, BTW). Then again, why would an administration even bother enforcing church-state separation abroad, when they view the concept as invalid?

1c) You make the war seem like a single event; let's review: Invasion (1991) shifted to seige (1991-2002), then a second invasion (2002-03) and occupation (2003-present), with civil war breaking out in '05 or 06.

1d) Whatever the monetary cost, "squandered" isn't the correct word. "Embezzled" would be more appropriate, as a lot of of those funds have been funnelled into "friendly" (to the administration) sources in the form of overcharges and uncontrolled spending. It isn't good enough to drain the treasury for "faith-based" initiatives, we can juice contracts from the tax and bond revenue, to embezzle money to recipients that we wouldn't be caught dead including in a budget.

2) Wiretapping is one of the few correct things the BushCo has done in two terms. In World War II, we interred the enemy, along with 100+ times as many innocent people. Now, we have the technology to attempt sorting the enemy from everyone else, and that's a much better alternative to camps and deportation.

3) Torture. Yep, and torture of anyone who happened to get sold out to the U.S., whether or not they were a problem. True to form, most of those responsible aren't in prison.

I think Kucinich has an actual case with the second article (deception of Iraq-al-Quaeda relationship); this was a lie on its face. The first article (deception for entering war) is mostly strong, but its weakness is the "Despite all evidence" portion. Recall the old Soviet double play (Russia to China to France...) bought themselves all the time needed (8-9 months) to clean up whatever they might have been doing in Iraq. The third article is faulty, particularly the "absent any real threat {of Iran} to the United States" part, and this is where the articles really show themselves as disingenuous.

You totally skipped over the implications of a President Cheney, specifically the fear that if installed as a lame duck with a year or so left in office, Cheney has the capacity to singlehandedly save the White House for the Republicans. Bush is right where the Democrats want him; his impotency is their strength.

Now is the time to act, you say. I think the action is under way as we speak, and will be drawn out as needed between now and the '08 election.