If you're going to accuse a president of lying and committing crimes, it might be nice to provide some particulars. But Frank Rich sees no need for such niceties in his New York Times column of today.
The putative topic is the McClellan book, but the real subject is Rich's abject Bush hatred. After referring to Pres. Bush as "the loathed lame duck," Rich writes:
Americans don’t like being lied to by their leaders, especially if there are casualties involved and especially if there’s no accountability. We view it as a crime story, and we won’t be satisfied until there’s a resolution.
So Bush lied and people died, is that it? What was the lie, where was the crime? Is Rich referencing WMD here, the same WMD that President Clinton, every major Dem leader at the time, and countries from France to Russia also said Saddam had? Rich doesn't say. If not WMD, something else? If so, what? And just what is the "resolution" Rich demands? Even Keith Olbermann recently, regretfully, recognized it's probably too late for impeachment.
Is Rich proposing the criminal prosecution of the president, then? Then why not have the courage to say so? Put in on the table. Note also Rich's use of the imperial "we." "We" view it as a crime story, and "we" won't be satisfied till there's a resolution. Does the Times columnist really purport to speak for the American people at large? Rich and like souls obviously loathe President Bush But my sense is that while many Americans are dissatisfied with the president's performance, relatively few hate him in the way Rich apparently imagines.
If a columnist is going to level these kinds of charges, and call for these kind of consequences, I'd say he should have the integrity and courage to speak in his own name and tell readers just what he's proposing.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Particulars????? We don't
June 1, 2008 - 07:50 ET by motherbeltParticulars????? We don't need no stinking particulars!!!
This is just anotherFrank Rich tantrum.
I'm going to send him some duct tape....it's really a wonder that his head doesn't explode!
After some 800
June 1, 2008 - 11:11 ET by kgAfter some 800 investigations why haven't they found one thing that was illegal? Maybe Waxman is not doing his job. Surely there has to be something in all these investigations. Either Bush is smarter than the total sum of congress or he is innocent.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Too old for rock and roll, too young to die
June 1, 2008 - 07:59 ET by Kuso JijiThis is the Woodstock Generation's last hoorah, their last chance to relive the old days, their last chance to feel like they are relevant, their last chance to be heard.
Their days are numbered. Its only a matter of time before the kids start sticking them in nursing homes never to be heard from again.
The dementia appears to have already set in, If Frank Rich and co. had any evidence to support impeachment, they would have done so already. If the UN thought this was an illegal war, they would have condemned the actions of the United States. So far, all quiet on the liberal front.
Mental Illness?
June 1, 2008 - 08:39 ET by blogonatorA psychotically insecure individual spends most waking hours criticizing others from every perspective in an effort to shift the blame away from his/her own perceived failings. The criticisms need no basis in fact.
In this case Frankie is dreadfully afraid that the common citizen is going to one day realize what a failure the democrats have been at governing and leading. (ex. Reid, the worse Senate leader in my memory; Pelosi, the most inept speaker of the House without dispute, Bill Clinton, an incompetent, laissez-faire president; Howard Dean, the architect of the demise of the democrat party.)
Rich is just trying to shine the spotlight on a shadow so that the real truth is avoided.
To be a democrat is to be psychotically insecure...............
Yeah impeach a President for "lies" that reelected him
June 1, 2008 - 09:01 ET by Dee BunkCalls for impeachment by these left wing lunatics are completely nonsensical. The supposed "lies" were all known to the American people before they reelected him President.
I guess the majority didn't see them as "lies"
Statements with which
June 1, 2008 - 09:02 ET by PeskyDaneStatements with which someone simply disagrees with are denounced as "lies," and policy is criminalized.
As distasteful as it is, I'll be voting for McCain. When conflicted, your only option is to go with the grown-up.
Impeachment
June 1, 2008 - 10:05 ET by BuffmonsterdogIt's not too late for impeachment. One needs not be in office to be impeached. President Clinton is still eligible for impeachment on other counts. Now that we know what was denied before, we should make sure history understands what happened. Let's give him some more "badges of courage." As for Bush, there are Constitutional grounds to impeach him, but not for WMDs or anything the Dems want to hang him for.
You can't impeach civilians
June 1, 2008 - 12:23 ET by CobraMan"One needs not be in office to be impeached."
Yes, one does. Only civil officials (that means holders of public office. you know, like the current President) can be impeached. That means that they have to actually be in office for any impeachment to commence. Once you leave office, you can't be impeached. The Legislative branch can not try and convict civilians, and the President becomes a civilian once he leaves office. Only the Judicial branch can try and convict civilians, other than for Contempt of Congress, that is.
Hey cobra --
June 1, 2008 - 13:12 ET by Jack BauerHey cobra --
Given that at least 50 million folks hold Congress in varying degrees of contempt at the moment, that's gonna be one long list!
Good grief, such
June 1, 2008 - 12:59 ET by Jack BauerGood grief, such ignorance.
Try reading the Constitution of the United States.
The PURPOSE of the House issuing and passing Articles of Impeachment is to hold a trial in the Senate, after which the President will be removed from office if found guilty.
Get that. Impeacnment is to REMOVE from office if that is the decision of two-thirds.
huh?
June 1, 2008 - 13:00 ET by candanceOne needs not be in office to be impeached
That's like saying if someone doesn't live with you, you can still kick them out.
It defies logic.
And these people are voting for our goverment. Unbelievable.
Frank Rich
June 1, 2008 - 10:26 ET by pbthinkerFrank Rich, and someone from the NY Times, calling for impeachment again? Wow, what a surprise that is! Has anyone kept a running count on how many, of the extreme leftists, have called for impeachment. Hell, we have Frank Rich, on more than one occasion, Olberman, on more than one occasion, Krugman (I believe on more than one occasion), and I'm sure there are more, including every host on Air America.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
Rosie
June 1, 2008 - 11:05 ET by GothampcDon't forget Rosie O'Donnell who went even further and said that GWB should be tried for war crimes at the Hague.
Frank Rich
June 1, 2008 - 10:31 ET by nandrelliRich, like virtually all the other liberal pundits, has replaced the King James version of the Holy Bible with the Scott McClellan version of the Holy Bible. Everything that Scott writes is true (even though he usually offers no corroborating facts), so obviously Bush lied.
The fact about the intelligence that led us into the Iraq War was that it was developed over a period of about 11 years since the end of the first Gulf War: about 1.5 years under Bush 41, about 1.5 years under Bush 43, and 8 years of Clinton. Clinton used the WMD intelligence in 1998 to justify an aerial war against Iraq (just as the Articles of Impeachment were to be voted upon, coincidentally). Therefore, simple logic says that if the intelligence was wrong, it was the Clinton administration that was primarily responsible for the inaccuracies.
In addition, it was the Clinton-appointed CIA director who presented the information to the President, and who made the now-famous statement that finding the WMD would be a "slam dunk".
So what justifies Mr. Rich's claims that Bush lied? The simple fact that he is a liberal, suffering from an advanced case of BDS (which was aggravated by the 2002 midterm elections, which he and most other liberals predicted would be a shoe-in for the Democrats). Rich became a totally unhinged hysterical old lady in November 2002, and hasn't improved since then. He, of course, would never admit it. But between him and Maureen Dowd, it is difficult to decide who is more deranged.
Speaking of Mo-Do
June 1, 2008 - 12:53 ET by Del DolemonteHer column today is almost as hallucinogenic as Drama Queen Frankie's is.
Frank Rich - Ex-Theater Critic
June 1, 2008 - 11:09 ET by GothampcFrank Rich is a joke. He used to be the theater critic at the New York Times. He was so bad as theater critic that he gave Madonna a good review for her Broadway debut in Speed the Plow. I don't know what he did to get promoted, but he's never had the gravitas to be anything more than a hack political writer.
----
June 1, 2008 - 13:02 ET by dahliatraversPresumably he's talking about WMD.
It's an open and shut case for impeachment. We just get the hundreds of thousands of people who survived or whose family members died in Saddam Hussein's repeated WMD attacks on the Kurds and on Iran to appear before Congress and explain that obviously President Bush lied because Saddam Hussein never had WMD.
DhliLama..thanks for the Extra Dashes...
June 1, 2008 - 13:40 ET by JayTeeI got you with a single Click.......
The WMD thing is gettng a little Stale...nobody hears about the Wagon Train of 18 Wheelers headed to Syria (spotted by Satallite) right before the Iraq Invasion, and connect it to the Israeli bombing of a Nuclear Site a few years later.
Lets face it, These Democrats that cannot Grasp the Hidden Cost of OIL, and Why Oil is so expensive, then how can they get a Vulcan (say real fast)Mind Grip on WMD's ?
----
June 1, 2008 - 17:31 ET by dahliatraversAnd the US did not want to bomb those Wagon Trains heading out of Iraq unless we were absolutely certain what was being carried because we did not want to needlessly kill innocent civilians. We don't hear about that either, Jay Tee.
Yawn. "Government's view
June 1, 2008 - 14:10 ET by fitzfongYawn.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
How can this "he lied he
June 1, 2008 - 14:28 ET by usinkoreaHow can this "he lied he lied he lied he lied" theme keep going and going year after year?!!
The sheer weight of the historical record showing how many people , like Bill Clinton and crew, Tony Blair, even war critics like France and Germany, ---------- were convinced Iraq had WMDs before the war ------ makes the "he lied lied lied" mantra simply insane....
.....it is a complete divorce of all we know about pre-Bush....!!!
Impeachment nonsense, with
June 1, 2008 - 14:58 ET by badger.Impeachment nonsense, with 7.5 months left in office, brilliant this guy is. People on the left have been talking this trash, trying to dig up any dirt they can, must be going on 5 years now, struggling to get Bush out of the white house. If there were any legal evidence/grounds/proof whatsoever, the MSM and the liberals would have used this ammo long ago. Even an uneducated, slow backward country hick like myself, knows this to be the case. Government almost got Clinton, slick willy/the come back kid, got away. Just like Nixon, close, but no cigar. Sure is heck ain't happening to Bush, much as they would like. Blood thirsty dogs will bark all day long, never biting.
MB - funny, I can't resist. Watched this classic a few days past. "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre." Bandito quote 'Badges? We ain't got no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin badges!' Proof? We ain't got no stinkin proof!
Want crimes? These are terms you can start getting familiar with
June 2, 2008 - 01:38 ET by Brett PaatschTorture - waterboarding is torture.
And Aggressive invasion. These are crimes under United States domestic and international law both. And humpty dumpty may say it ain't torture when he does it, but it is what it is, and 6 billion people who know what right and wrong is when they see it at the extremes, aren't going to keep buying exceptionalistic patriotic bullshit from any country.
This is not the place for a trial. Neither for making specific charges nor for defending them, this is a forum. Just thought I'd give you folks a heads up on some specific terms you might want to get familiar with when wondering what the crimes might be.
You might also want to think about how you feel about torture and aggressive invasion. Whether you are for those things being Presidential perogatives or against it.
Perhaps you are for them when Americans do them and against them other times. Yeah well 6 billion people looking at broken treaties will sooner or later deal with even 300 million knumb skulls that "think" like that too.
When you try and circle the wagons to protect a war criminal coz you think, what they heck in the end he's still your war criminal, then you aren't going to get a lot of loyalty from inside the bunker either.
yaaaawwwwnnnn!
June 2, 2008 - 09:00 ET by voodoodaddyGive me a freakin' break. You probably think that the hazing that went on at GITMO was also real torture. Waterboarding is like jumping in the pool without holding your nose compared to Real Torture! I would much rather be water boarded then to have my head cut off with a kitchen knife. Get real my friend.
AMEN
June 2, 2008 - 09:24 ET by SickofLibsAMEN
This is not the place for a
June 2, 2008 - 15:51 ET by BDThis is not the place for a trial.
What place specifically? Are we saying the Federal courtroom in Guantanamo is not adequate to hold a trial? Why not?
You might also want to think about how you feel about torture
I am against it, naturally. And I realize that most of what the liberals rail against is not torture. I have heard some libs say that the prospect of indefinate confinement is torture. Which would be a surprise to the POW's of WWII, WWI, etc who knew that they would either be held until their escape our the conclusion of hostilities be that one year or one hundred years.
Yeah well 6 billion people looking at broken treaties
I take it you are upset that Iraq continuously violated the rules of the armistice that concluded the first gulf war. Is that the treaty you are upset that it was violated? Because in all honesty I cannot think of a single treaty that the current administration has violated.
When you try and circle the wagons to protect a war criminal
And which war criminal is this you are speaking of? Could it be the members of AQ who fight un-uniformed and do not take prisoners nor treat them well. By the way, do you know what the rules regarding "legitimate Repriasal" are?