Charlie Gibson's recent interview with George and Laura Bush will be used by historians to argue the case for President Bush being the most clueless and damaging national leader ever-- narrowly besting Caligula.
GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?
BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.
GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.
BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.
Alright, the first question may have been simply misunderstood, although I cannot fathom how, I'll give Bush the benefit of the doubt that he didn't get Gibson meaning about he correctness of "the intelligence." But the answer to the second question is crystal clear: Even if he had known for a fact that Saddam was no threat to the US, Bush may still have waged war on him. Is that what the Iraq Force Resolution* passed by Congress in 2002 authorized?
Impeach him. Now.
*The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
1 comment:
You will get no argument from myself or a majoity of the populace. Our Senators and Congress won't act on a impeachment. Hell, even Pelosi said it's off the table. Not one of them has the balls to attempt it. So what's a citizen to do?
Post a Comment