Sponsors

Remember, Mr. Gingrich? With Clinton it Was, "Did he lie?" How About Bush's 935 Lies? Email Print

Ah, how much piety was in the air with Republicans such as Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde, both of whom were marital philanderers, when they sought along with their similarly self-righteous party colleagues to remove Bill Clinton from the presidency.

The key question for these self-righteous Republicans was:  "Did Clinton lie?"  The corollary was that if President Bill Clinton lied on the subject of whether or not he had sex with White House intern Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office then grounds for impeachment existed.  

It is doubtful that thoughts of the stains on Lewinsky's blue dress have left the "chaste conscience" of "moralist" Ann Coulter for a single waking minute since the Clinton-Lewinsky liaison occurred.  

To put the issue in perspective, the lie that Clinton ultimately acknowledged he told was in an affidavit in a civil legal case.  Virtually any domestic relations attorney or psychologist dealing with matrimonial affairs would concur that perhaps the single leading instance of lying occurs when spouses deny extra marital affairs, the type of conduct applicable in the case against Clinton for impeachment.

The germane issue was whether lying about an extra marital affair under oath fell under the category of the U.S. Constitution's impeachable offense category of "high crimes and misdemeanors".  

Unsurprisingly, an impressive array of constitutional legal experts along with former U.S. attorneys that weighed in on the subjects opined that extra marital sex was not what the Founding Fathers had in mind regarding impeachable offenses.

So now, Mr. Gingrich, current political commentator at that beacon of the airways for far right Republican Party pontificating, Fox News, what about the statistic that the Center for Public Integrity just released?  

According to the Center, Bush Incorporated, meaning the cabal that met, strategized, then sent the representatives of Halliburton and Bechtel to divide the spoils of Iraq after Donald Rumsfeld's shock and awe attack enabled them to do so.

Bush Incorporated lied with impunity on the subject of those fictitious weapons of mass destruction that legitimized invading and driving from power former Republican Party ally and favored Middle East son, dictator Saddam Hussein.

The Center for Public Integrity found that Bush and his team lied 935 times at least in this rush to war.  Now Mr. Gingrich, you and your colleagues so exorcised about a White House intern's dress stains, how about the rapidly approaching figure of 4,000 lives lost among U.S. service personnel in Iraq?

How about the deaths of between 600,000 to 1 million Iraqis, Mr. Gingrich?  Yes, and there is that burgeoning refugee problem.  It stands now at better than 3 million Iraqis, Mr. Gingrich, with a future prospect of as many as 5 million who will have fled their homes and flooded neighboring Middle East nations.

Should there be accountability for such lies, Mr. Gingrich?  We ask the same question of Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi as well.  Should there be accountability?  Do these lost lives count for something?  

Do they stand for more than corporate strategy to grab an oil rich Middle East nation's assets?  Do they stand for more than corporate opportunity for the likes of Halliburton and Bechtel?

Oh, Mr. Gingrich, perhaps you are caucusing now with fellow Fox corporate propagandists such as O'Reilly and Hannity for a response.  I can hear your pathetic explanations now:

"Well, this is a whole lot different than Clinton!  For one thing, we're at war!  We're fighting Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda over there!  Remember 9/11?  Besides, well, anybody can make a mistake and we did get rid of a bad man in Iraq!"

Yes, we have heard these feeble arguments before.  Saddam Hussein was your Republican ally during those glorious years of Ronald "Doctor Feelgood" Reagan.  

Saddam Hussein used our technology to commit genocide on his Kurdish population but this never bothered those glorious neoconservatives who explained indifferently, "Well, we had a different enemy then."

Dick Cheney tried out the phony argument about a link between bin Laden-al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.  Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were sworn enemies from different spheres of Islam and the purported connection was punctured with the same swift devastation as those false and frequently stated claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

We also remember how Bush took center stage and adopted his "Ah shucks" demeanor after the weapons of mass destruction argument was irreparably shattered.  "Gee, anybody can make a mistake!" was the manner he adopted, never expressing one iota of regret for the death and destruction he and his cronies at Bush Incorporated caused.

There was no mistake.  A series of bold, unconscionable lies were unleashed to take a nation to war to grab Iraq's oil and enrich conglomerates associated with the New World Order that the Elder Bush, Colin Powell and others labored assiduously to develop.

Remember Hans Blix and the team of UN weapons inspectors that were on the scene in Iraq?  They begged for more time to finish their report, which to then had yielded nothing in the way of proof of weapons of mass destruction.  President Jacques Chirac of France also urged restraint and additional time.

So what was the response of Bush Incorporated along with its major media lackey Fox News?  Sweden and France were belittled as nations.  The Swedish Hans Blix was caricatured as a wimp from a nation too frightened to fight in a good old Rambo style war!  

Chirac of France was painted as coming from the same mold.  The French were painted as wimps as well and the concept of Freedom fries was born on Bush's Air Force One.

What a pathetic chapter of American history!

Rachel Maddow struck the perfect note on Keith Olbermann's Wednesday night, January 23 broadcast.  Ms. Maddow asserted that such compelling evidence as the 935 lies told in connection with the fallacious claim of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction mandates that Congress has a duty.

That duty is to commence impeachment hearings against Bush and Cheney.  Ms. Maddow stated further that if the U.S. Constitution is to hold any meaning at all with reference to trying public officials who grievously abuse it that impeachment is the necessary corrective response.

Dennis Kucinich has introduced a resolution of impeachment against Bush.  He had previously introduced such a resolution against Cheney.  Kucinich called on Speaker of the House Pelosi to immediately address this vital issue of impeachment.

This issue cuts to the fiber and being of the United States Constitution.  Impeachment must be addressed immediately if this nation is to hold any credence or meaning as a democratic force in the world community of nations.

If Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid stand in the way of this necessary constitutional process then the response should be swift and simple.

Pelosi and Reid should be summarily removed from their leadership positions so that the wheels of justice can finally commence.      

 


KEYWORDS: , , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Study Suggests Bush Administration Lied About Iraq 935 Times! | Whose Oil is it? >
 Display:
 Display: