we’ve heard it before, and we’re hearing it now:
“if the democratic party is going to be attacking the president in a time of war, then we are ready to vote and let’s see what the democratic party says,” frist told reporters right after the floor skirmish.
there are three prongs of logic that defeat the entire “he’s a wartime president, so don’t be mean to him” defense. and they each one depend on which “war” the repubbbs are talking about when they parrot this talking point.
we examine all three after the jump:
- the iraq war: awol started this one his own self, and convinced us all (“all” being the loosest definition possible, certainly not you or us) to attack iraq based on false evidence; at best he is incompetent, at worst he is a liar; in either case he doesn’t get a “king’s x from criticism” out of a war he himself initiated.
- the afghanistan war: this one is a slight corollary to the above. if awol had concentrated on actually finding bin laden, instead of diverting focus, energy, resources and lives into the iraq debacle, we’d most likely have that terrorist sitting in the cell where saddam currently resides, and there would be no war for awol to hide behind.
- the war on “terror”: this one is our favorite, because it’s so incredibly outrageous on its face, that it’s fun to simply state the facts and watch the hardly-ever-rightwing logic melt away, like so many wicked witches of the west after a bucket of water.
setting aside the impossibility of waging a “war” on a technique (a “war on left flanks!” a “war on garroting!”), rather than an actual recognized political state or country of human enemies, the “war on terror,” if it exists, has been waged by the united states at least since the attack on the marine base in beirut during reagan’s administration.
by the current definition of “war on terror,” every modern president since the 80’s has been a “wartime president,” including awol’s daddy, as well as (and this is important), bill clinton (witness the the first attack on the wtc and uss cole).
yes, bill clinton, whom the repubbbs had no problem impeaching for a sexual relationship. we’ll repeat that: bill clinton, a wartime president as defined by the current standards being used now, was impeached by the repubbblican party (and the vichy democrats) for a sexual relationship.
we suggest you continue to call your senators and demand they stand with sen. feingold in his resolution to censure awol for his illegal wire-tapping of american cititzens.
addendum: we discuss the fact (found via busy, busy, busy) that sen. dianne feinstein proposed censure of clinton in 1999 but refuses to <s>support</s> state her position on feingold here.
double addendum: we call sen. feinstein’s office ourselves.
