catapult magazine

Depending what channel you’re tuned to, you may be hearing a lot of chatter about Nixon/Watergate and Clinton/Monicagate in relation to Bush/WMDgate (yes, the names for these things keep getting worse and worse). Occasionally the word “impeachment” even pops up.

It seems to me that with all the apparent contradictions between the intelligence and the public assertions that brought us war as well as the indications that the administration pressured the intelligence agencies to “find” support for their position, at the least an independent, public investigation is in order.

Surely this is a much more serious issue than the circus around Clinton?

I hear what you’re saying, laryn. I’m not sure what to believe right now. Bush’s offices were stacked with people itching for a fight, so it’s not unlikely that they were pressuring the intelligence people to find a certain kind of evidence. And the quote you give in another posting suggests Bush was going to do what God told him to regardless of what anyone else said. On the other hand, Bush seemed sincere in his belief that Saddam presented a real threat to the world. He gets points for sincerity, and for working on the impossible peace deal now. Other than that I don’t have anything good to say about his foreign policy decisions. But I’m not holding my breath for impeachment. Election defeat would be just as good.

Election defeat seems unlikely at this point. Democrats have not done a very good job at presenting (or having) their own agenda. They’ve mostly been reactionary because, well… what else can they do at this point?

I would be disappointed if it ends up being true that too much pressure was put on the intelligence community to come up with the “right kind of intelligence”, especially since justification for going to war could have been made on sturdier stuff (I would actually prefer if Bush was able to justify it merely on the principle that it was God’s Will, but that argument just doesn’t fly in this day and age). I think what keeps Americans from calling for impeachment is that they agree with the end results (how American-pragmatistic of us) and think that, no matter what the false reasons Bush gave, it was the right thing to do in the end.

And this is what infuriates me about the whole thing: very few people would actually care if they were misled. I can’t believe that. What does that say about our nation? It’s embaressing.

I’d like to ask a question to anyone out there who might know: we’ve all heard of this document that was forged claiming that Iraq was trying buy nuclear material from Nigeria and how even the IAEA knew it was a fake even though the committee isn’t built to detect those things and how so how could the Bushies use it in their argument. We’ve all heard this, right? But my question is who in the world forged it?! Where did this come from? I haven’t seen one person pose this question. I’m more than willing to give the Bushies the benefit of the doubt on this one, but then who?! Has anyone heard anything about this? Did I just not hear this news?

By the way, this week’s The New Republic has a cover story on this WMD fiasco:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtmli=20030630&s=ackermanjudis063003

One of the few times in history when the primary stated reason for going to war was that it’s ’God’s will’ was the crusades. I’m pretty sure we don’t want to emulate that model. The usual reason for going to war is if you’re attacked or if you think you can benefit from defeating your neighbour. Leaders tack “God’s will” on to sanction the deed, but Bush didn’t publicize his primary reason, if this is true.

Grant, I think your position is dangerous. Like Sarah said in another post, a lot of people’s God contradicts Bush’s God. A healthy dose of uncertainty and caution would be welcome.

As far as election defeat goes, I think a large part of how likely it’ll be depends on Iraq. If American soldiers keep getting picked off every day until the election, I think public opinion will definitely turn. It may even be that his golden moment in his flight suit will be more baggage than blessing.

I think what keeps Americans from calling for impeachment is probably partly what you say, but a large part of it is ignorance. I heard some scary statistics the other day: a third of the public thinks we’ve found WMD in Iraq; nearly a quarter thinks Iraq used them on US troops; half believe that Iraqis were among the hijackers on Sept 11… Why talk about impeachment if you believe that the weapons have been found or if you think you just gave Saddam payback for 9/11?

dvdschp—I have only read one news report that brought up the question you raise…but i can’t remember which one. They had some speculations on it, but nothing concrete—and were as amazed as you and i at how little attention that question is getting.

(I think I’ll jump to the other thread to respond to the bits about “God’s will.”)

Grant, I agree with Dan that your position is dangerous.
Of course, God is dangerous. He’s not a safe God. He’s definitely wild in the OT. Even though we’re in a new manifestation of the covenant, God still has the same character.

God still hates sin. He still wants his people to seek his will and follow it with conviction.

The facts, details, and nuances are important but they don’t interest me as much as the heart. I think President Bush truly desires to do what’s right before God and what’s right for the world.
As long as there is sin in this world there will be conflict, confusion, and anger, but I’ll take a man with a heart for God over a man trying to please everyone any day.

Here’s a list of 10 lies by the administration as compiled by AlterNet. And as far as people’s ignorance of what was said compared to what was found, I have to admit it’s not as shocking as it first seemed. The administration has been adept at claiming to have found something and getting big press, then quietly retracting it later without the media coverage. I didn’t even realize that the two mobile trailers (which Bush referred to as weapons of mass destruction—??) were removed from the list, as is pointed out in this article. Oh yeah, those really aren’t WMD-facilities, the British sold those to them to fill weather balloons—exactly what the Iraqi’s said they were in the first place.

And I was amazed to hear that on September 11th, 5 hours after the Pentagon was hit, a retired general who was going to appear on CNN received a call from someone “representing the White House position,” who pressured him to tie the attacks to Saddam Hussein. And the kicker is, he told them he was willing to say it if they showed him any evidence, which he never got.

http://www.alternet.org/16274.html

Jason, would you follow a man who claims to be following God’s directives if it involved lies? Deception? The deaths of thousands of people? I’m not saying that Bush isn’t a believer, and I’m trying to believe that he had good intentions in Iraq. I just think that his good intentions have begun to pave a road to somewhere he didn’t intend, and I still believe that there are right ways to do things and wrong ways to do things. Obviously I think he did things the wrong way. (It’s wildly off-topic but it reminds me of an article I read about someone who said she was a “stripper for Jesus,” because she donated some of the money she made to a church or a charity. Nice thought, but maybe not the way to go about it.)

And another was the September 11 attacks. Not a real promising bandwagon to jump on, I think.

Grant, what are the ‘sturdier’ reasons for going to war that bush should have used? Or were you referring to the “it’s gods will” rationale?

I can think of a few other examples of men who want to please God so much that nothing else matters. How about the guys who flew the planes into the WTC? They loved God more than anything I bet. They wanted to do what they felt was right, even if it meant thousands of people had to die. I don’t believe for a moment that those guys thought they were doing something bad. Bush isn’t in the same camp, but the attitudes are similar and that’s why I reject this ‘dangerous’ position that seems so attractive to fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus alike.