The Broad is Back!

June 11, 2008

Why Impeach for Lies? As Long as there was no sex….

Filed under: American culture,Kucinich,New Broads,politics,protest — by maggiec @ 10:20 am

Monday evening, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the guy I was supporting for president, brought to the House floor 35 article for the impeachment of President Bush, mostly for issues of lying and war-mongering.  I watched part of it live on C-SPAN and waited with glee for some coverage in the press.

Yesterday, my beloved Gray Lady (the NY Times), had this to say:

National Briefing | Washington

Kucinich Seeks to Impeach Bush

Published: June 11, 2008

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, defied his party leadership on Monday by calling for the impeachment of President Bush for starting the war in Iraq — but his move was not expected to go anywhere. Mr. Kucinich, a former presidential candidate, outlined his intention to propose more than two dozen charges against Mr. Bush on the floor of the House. He accused Mr. Bush of executing a “calculated and wide-ranging strategy” to deceive citizens and Congress into believing that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she opposes trying to remove Mr. Bush, calling such an effort divisive and most likely unsuccessful.

And that, it seems, is the end of that.

If you google Kucinich + impeachment, you see a lot about the articles he brought against VP Cheney (I bet you missed that one, too), but not much about what happened this week.  Folks are too involved with the heat wave in the North East, the floods in the Midwest and gas prices, I guess.  Can’t blame the administration for the former, but the latter?  Maybe.

For me, this all points to the travesty of justice in American government.  President Bill Clinton faced an impeachment hearing over his role in the Monica Lewinski scandal.  He wasn’t brought up for the Monica part, but for the lying and obstruction of justice part.  Fair enough.  But why was the Lewinski scandal a scandal?  Who got hurt?  A young, she was only 21, naive girl (which is a shame), a wife (which is a shame, too), and that’s about it.  Since when is marital infidelity any one’s business but the people involved?  So the American taxpayer footed the bill for the impeachment hearings over what basically amounted to a very bad lapse of judgment on the part of the president of  the United States that ultimately harmed no one but the very small group of people involved.

People argue that the “office of the president” was tarnished.  Yes, it was.  It’s not the first time the White House has seen a sex scandal, and my guess is that it won’t be the last time.  But now, almost ten years after those proceedings, Bill Clinton is doing OK, Monica Lewinsky has earned an MA from the London School of Economics, Hillary has been in the news a bit lately.  Many think the Lewinsky scandal did harm her chances for becoming president.  I’m sure they didn’t help, but she did make it to senator with little problem.  That’s not a small accomplishment. (The Times of London did an in-depth “Where are they now” feature for the 10th anniversary of the scandal.  The Lewinsky segment is very enlightening.)

But Democratic leadership refuses to impeach President Bush for lying to the people of the United States in a situation that resulted in a war in which thousands of American lives have been lost, tens of thousands of foreign lives have been lost, America’s economic future has been destroyed for the foreseeable future, and our moral authority in the world has been irreparably damaged.

Could someone explain the logic of this to me, because I certainly don’t understand.

Lying is wrong.  Yes.  Clinton was wrong.  Many argued that if he showed poor moral character in this regard, it points to poor moral character all around.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Hey, Henry Kissinger said it best with his famous quip, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”  And many people in power use that aphrodisiac.  It’s more about the ego than the libido.

But in my moral scales, somehow Clinton’s actions seem so petty, so unimportant in the big picture.  But Bush’s actions?  I think they demonstrate a much scarier lack of moral judgment and responsibility.

Obviously, though, the leadership of the United States doesn’t agree with me.  Well, one man does, but he’s been marginalized.


1 Comment »

  1. I love Kucinich. He was my first choice too. I think it’s important that he got the charges against Bush and Cheney read into the Congressional Record.

    Comment by Emily — June 11, 2008 @ 12:12 pm |Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: