Iraq

W. Kiernan WKiernan at concentric.net
Wed Dec 16 20:00:32 PST 1998


Frances Bolton (PHI) wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Jim heartfield wrote:
>
> > According to the senate leader the coincidence of the current strike
> > against Iraq with the third ever impeachment hearing against a US
> > president is 'unique'. The Congress have refused to support a
> > resolution supporting the president. A child could work out that
> > the president has decided that the lives of arabs in Iraq are
> > expendable in the struggle to distract attention from his domestic
> > problems.
>
> If Clinton ordered the attack in hopes of delaying the impeachment
> votes that would constitute a gross abuse of power, and it would be
> an impeachable offense.

No way they would impeach Clinton merely for murdering Iraqi civilians. There's even a recent precedent to exonerate ol' Slick; Reagan blasted Grenada to bits in order to distract the dispirited American public after the bombing in Beirut, and that was OK. And what about Iran-Contra, where CIA-funded mercenaries butchered thirty thousand civilians? Reagan (and Bush, and Casey, and Poindexter, and North) all lied and perjured themselves repeatedly and systematically about the Contra business, but did Reagan get impeached? Of course not. Some lies, after all, are forgivable. Charles, we call those "white lies."

Congress certainly would never impeach a president for a little peccadillo like mass-murdering civilians, especially as they're foreign civilians. We save impeachment for really major crimes, such as a politician having a sex affair and neglecting to supply the opposition party with videotapes in time for their next election campaign.

More damned bombs. Excuse me, I have to go get drunk, or bash my head against a wall, or something.

Yours WDK - WKiernan at concentric.net

** They say we're fighting again ** ** In some fuckin' land ** ** Ah, throw on another tape, man. - Paul **



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list