Sunday, January 06, 2008

George McGovern: Still A Fool After All These Years

Today's WaPo brought us the ruminations of 1972 Democrat presidential nominee, and former Senator, George McGovern.

No, he's not dead yet. At least, not from the neck down.

But one could reasonably conclude that he certainly is dead from the neck up from reading his ridiculous rantings against the Bush Administration, suggesting that both the President and the Vice President should be impeached. It certainly reconfirms why, as bad as Richard Nixon may have been, the American people were certainly right to keep this fool as far away from the White House as humanly possible.

It's almost impossible to catalog the ridiculous lies and misrepresentations without reproducing the entire rant, but to respond just to the highlights:

"The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, [but thank you, George, for demonstrating that "a narrow and ... superficial partisanship exists among Democrats] and a lack of courage and statesmanship [ --- defined as doing what I want them to do ---] on the part of too many Democratic politicians."

Here's McGovern's general indictment

But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

Wow! That sounds serious. Too bad McGovern sustains it with "facts" which are only the products of the fertile imaginations in the moonbat far Left.

From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation.

Give McGovern credit: at least he lets us know immediately that he's willing to buy the most ridiculous nonsense from the far Left. And he doesn't disappoint: "....American democracy has been derailed...." News flash, George! We're a "republic," not a "democracy."

Fortunately, such an elementary mistake is a tipoff to the informed reader as to how seriously McGovern's other comments should be taken.

McGovern declares that "The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq." Well, I would argue that the "dominant commitment of the administration" has been to the safety of the American people, but of course, that is arguable. And whether it is "irresponsible," as McGovern goes on to assert, is of course debatable.

What is not arguable is that the war in --- not against --- Iraq (the war "against" Iraq was won nearly four years ago, and what are now doing is resisting an insurgency) is not "illegal." Of course, the use of the term "murderous" is just silly. What does that mean in the sense of any war ? One has to wonder whether, in the best tradition of his most ardent 1972 supporters, McGovern is suggesting that American soldiers are committing war crimes wantonly and/or with official sanction.

McGovern is simply wrong when he asserts that the war is illegal because it "has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires." It clearly doesn't, and this nation has engaged in warmaking without a constitutional declaration of war dozens of times in American history. McGovern also declares that the war is illegal because it is "in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law," as though someone who was a miserable failure as an American presidential candidate is some kind of arbiter of violations of the U.N. Charter --- and note that McGovern fails to mention 17 different U.N. Security Council resolutions of which Saddam Hussein was in violation --- or "international law," whatever that is.

McGovern also declares that "The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush," and asks "has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?" The answer is, of course, debatable, but I can imagine an administration more "damaging [than] the Bush-Cheney era."

Imagine, if you will, a McGovern Administration.


It's then that McGovern really gets going with outrageous lies:

the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood.
The problem? Virtually every word of McGovern's assertion is --- to borrow his phrase --- a "blatant falsehood."

"[H]ad nuclear arms"?!?!?! Hardly. "Sought to acquire nuclear arms," a conclusion based upon intelligence from the Brits (by which they still stand, incidentally)? Certainly. And to accept McGovern's premise, one would have to assume that it was a ridiculous notion to believe that Hussein would do so. Hello? "Osirik" ring a bell, George? The Israelis were convinced enough to bomb that French-built nuclear reactor in 1981, perhaps the only reason that Hussein did not have nuclear weapons by 199o, when it invaded Kuwait.

"[H]ad ... other horrifying banned weapons"?!?! Well, yeah. Of course. The entire point of the post-1991 inspection regime (remember those 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions?) was the requirement that Iraq demonstrate that it did not have such weapons. It failed or refused to do so, an adequate and lawful casus belli to recommence the hostliities halted in 1991. Certainly, it had them at one time. Hussein used them in the Iran/Iraq War of the early 1980s, and against the Kurds, i.e., his own people, a few years later.

"Imminent threat"?!?! There you go again, repeating the most outrageous lies of the far Left. The entire premise of a policy of preemption --- the justification for invading Iraq to remove Hussein's regime --- is to address a "threat" before it become "imminent."

It's really too bad that the far Left is so intellectually chaotic/dishonest that it can't keep straight its slanders to the extent that it is not self-contradictory.

And then there's "led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks." Really? How? Now, I don't doubt that many Americans --- in the fog of ignorance which surrounds most of them --- believe that, but the fact is, no far Leftie has ever been able to cite even a scintilla of evidence that the Administration ever made such an accusation, or ever did anything to promote such a viewpoint. It's simply another of the "big lies" of the far Left, Bush-hating moonbats.

And this guy carried the presidential nomination of a major American political party?!?!!

George just can't seem to help himself. He goes on to make assertions about "the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents" --- only if you're talking to terrorists or terrorist-suspects from other countries, George --- and that the Administration has "impl[ied] that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world," an incredibly ridiculous accusation to eleve against an Administration which has gone to great pains to distinguish between most Muslims and the radical fringe.

George doesn't even seem to speak the same language. He says "Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus," as though "our time-tested laws of habeas corpus" were sacrosanct (they're not; Lincoln suspended the writ during the Civil War, and the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to suspend it), or even applicable to illegal combatants who are never under the jurisdiction of the Federal courts (which they are not, precisely because they have been "scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries."

And it's absolutely hilarious that McGovern complains about the fact that "the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world," while in the same article complaining that "the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons." And on what did "the Bush-Cheney team" base their "deception"? Oh, yeah, that would be faulty intelligence that McGovern now, apparently, believes should be treated as Holy Writ.

McGovern is also exercised --- he calls it "scandalous neglect and mishandling" --- over the Administration's response to Hurricane Katrina. And as authority? McGovern cites "veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty."

Amazing! Apparently, George W. Bush should be impeached because the Democrat Governor of Louisiana and Democrat Mayor of New Orleans were incompetent, and because the Administration was overwhelmed by the disaster caused by their incompetence.

So George McGoveron wants George W. Bush impeached.

If you want to tell George McGovern how ridiculous he remains, the WaPo helpfully provides an e-mail address.

No comments: