Saturday, October 11, 2008

Impeaching is Too Good For Bush

Steve Benen writes All of Bush's Ideas Are Necessarily Great. He puts some context around an article in Esquire by Ron Suskind that includes:

"'Bad policy,' President Bush said. 'If I decide to do it, by definition it's good policy. I thought you got th"

But Suskind's article has a number of other points:

"I also learned from another source, Bush's first treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, that at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting, in January 2001, finding a rationale for overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein topped the agenda."

"And most recently I learned that the White House was apprised by the Iraqi intelligence chief in January 2003--well in advance of the war--that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed no weapons of mass destruction and had no such active weapons programs. The intelligence chief, in his secret back-channel meetings, also described the mind of Saddam--his fear of the Iranians finding out he was weaponless--which explained his odd prewar behavior. When this fact was borne out after the invasion, the White House directed that a fraudulent document be created to establish a connection between the Iraqi regime and the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta. (This document miraculously materialized in Baghdad in December 2003.)"

1 comment:

DKB said...

It's not so much that impeaching is too good for him, it's that the PUNISHMENT from a successful impeachment would be insufficient. Unless the logical connection could be made that Bush honestly believes we're in a war, and he's convicted of treason. As the Commander in Chief he's a member of the military, right? Isn't treason punishable by execution in times of war? For all the deaths his miserably twisted, illegal actions have called, that's the minimum just penalty. Perhaps a few weeks of "enhanced interrogation" prior to the firing squad to make sure none of his crimes have been missed?