BootsBlog
11.29.2004
Nuh uh
I think I've hit on a way to cope with the unsettling truth that Bush 2.0 is really about to happen.
It's called denial.
Not a sophisticated form of denial, along the lines of failing to recognize his authority as president because he stole the election four years ago and likely did so again, though we'll never know, thanks to a compliant and de facto complicit media. And not a defiant form of denial, as voiced by the "Count every vote!" people who genuinely believe such a thing is possible when the GOP has a hold on the electoral machinery not unlike the hold that got Pee-Wee Herman in trouble so many years ago.
No, this is a more, um, primitive form of denial. Think Khruschev banging his shoe on the table. Think "nana-nana-boo-boo." I've been doing this for years.
Here's a transcript of a conversation from 1972.
My sister: "I'm telling!"
Me: "Nuh uh!"
My sister: "Yuh huh!"
Me: "Nuh uh!"
Oh, wait. That was actually from this past Thanksgiving. Whatever. The point remains: I'm just ignoring an uncomfortable reality. It's worked so far.
There are certain situations in which it's probably not a great idea -- for instance, if you find yourself saying, "That isn't a cop behind me. With his lights flashing. And a shotgun pointed at me," it might be time to face the truth. But in this political climate, it just might be the thing that gets me through the next four years.
Well, that and raspberry vodka.
(slightly edited Nov. 30)
11.26.2004
Stoppage of play
Yeah, it's been kind of a bleak autumn so far. Mainly because of that whole election thingie this month (my God, that was this month!), but it's felt like something else was missing. It wasn't until I found myself rereading Full Spectrum, by Jay Greenberg, that I realized how much I missed major-league hockey.
Remember hockey? A bunch of oversized Canadians and Europeans with consonant-laden surnames hitting each other and occasionally shooting something called a "puck" at a guy too bashful (or, more often, embarrassed) to show his face?
Sigh. Those were the days.
The problem with the Greenberg book is that it's a history of the Flyers' first three decades. When the last two decades and change consist of desperate attempts to recapture the glory, it gets a little depressing. But it's a Philadelphia sports book. It has to be depressing.
The amazing thing about the book is how many guys have donned the orange and black and then retreated into anonymity. Ah, for the glory days of Claude Boivin. And who can forget the stirring moments of drama provided by Blake Dunlop? These guys aren't even trivia questions, because the people who write trivia questions haven't heard of them.
Link
11.12.2004
'Give up hope,' newspaper advises
Heartfelt advice to John Timpane:
Many people consider a newspaper a source for information. Sometimes, that information is not readily available elsewhere. Hence the need for independent research by a newspaper's reporters. It's a process known as "newsgathering." Many newspapers still employ it.
One more thing. Remember Watergate? It was a really big scandal back in the 1970s. It was broken by a couple of reporters who were assigned to cover a story about a burglary. They suspected there was more to the story. And guess what? There was! (There was even a movie about it and everything!)
This comes to you as a public service from a reader.
Oh, I guess I should explain the 'tude here. This was in Thursday's Philadelphia Inquirer, on the op-ed page (it's linked above, but because it's not available without subscription, here it is):
Heartfelt advice to those who insist
John Timpane
is
the Commentary Page editor for The Inquirer
I write in answer to a couple hundred e-mails, a couple hundred phone calls, a raft of personal communications from depressed folks waist-deep in denial. I have some news that will not cheer them. But, hey, it's my job. Brace yourself. Here it comes.
On Jan. 20, George W. Bush will take the oath of office. Again. He will make an inaugural speech. Again. And then, Lord willing, he will be your president for four years.
The guy won the election. It is o-verrrrr. Give up hope, all ye who linger here.
But news abounds, you say, of election fraud in Ohio and Florida! Buried voting machines found with thousands of Kerry votes uncounted! Voters misinformed, miscounted, missed! Fraud rampant, barefaced, gory-visaged! Scandal alleged! Collusion! Investigations threatened! We'll turn this thing around yet.
Dear friends: Give it up.
This comes to you as a public service by this newspaper.
Contact John Timpane at 215-854-4406 or jt@phillynews.com.
Link
11.05.2004
Sitting shiva
I know it's three days later and all, and it's time to come back into the world and accept the fact that President Bush has, for the first time, been duly elected by a majority of the people and, stunningly, without requiring the intervention of five activist judges.
But it's still mourning in Blue America.
I figure I'm allowed three days of grieving. It could be seven, but frankly I'm not quite that religious. And I'm running out of black clothing.
So at some point this weekend, the crazy blogging action should resume.
10.31.2004
1,001 Reasons Not To Vote For Bush (Vol. 101)
1,001. Because George W. Bush and his administration have established over the last four years that they are blind and deaf to any opinions, any situations, any facts that contradict their preconceptions.
Maybe it's a religious thing -- the zeal of the true believer. Maybe it's a defense mechanism -- if you tune out the naysayers, you bolster your self-confidence. Maybe it's something more nefarious. But from compiling this list over the last few months, this is what I've learned: Bush and his cronies just don't want to hear anything that doesn't agree with them.
It's evident on the campaign trail, where protesters -- sometimes defined as people wearing anti-Bush T-shirts -- are kept apart at Bush rallies and not infrequently arrested. It's evident in Bush's domestic agenda: He's managed to ignore the threat of global warming, which a scientific consensus has concluded is a growing danger. It's evident in Iraq, where Bush and Cheney and the crew might actually have believed what they said publicly: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators rather than conquerors, that the invasion would be speedy and efficient, that the mission really would be accomplished in a matter of weeks.
But perhaps nowhere was this Bush doctrine more tragically in evidence than on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.
Bush and Cheney like to warn that John Kerry is living in a Sept. 10 world. They're wrong, not surprisingly. But it goes deeper than that. The people who lived in a Sept. 10 world were, almost by definition, Bush and Cheney. And Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and the whole gang.
When the Bush administration came into Washington, departing Clinton officials made a point of telling them about the dangers the nation would face from a new kind of enemy, one that isn't based in a state, one that has no tangible boundaries. They warned the Bushies specifically about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. They might as well have been telling Bush about the benefits of solar energy over oil. Bush and his crew weren't listening. It didn't fit the paradigm, so in their minds, it didn't exist.
It's not that Bush is stupid. He's an astonishingly poor speaker, and he certainly has been prone to say the opposite of what he's supposed to say, particularly during the campaign. But the bigger problem is exactly what he's touting as his greatest strength: his conviction that his course is the right one. Certitude is great, but being sure you're right when you're actually wrong carries only one certainty: disaster.
Which has been pretty obvious for some time.
I'm not a student of political science. I started compiling this list as a way of getting involved in the election to a limited extent, and as a way to crack some "Is our children learning?" jokes. But as I chronicled the myriad flaws and errors and shames of George W. Bush and his administration, the unmistakable pattern of willful self-deception emerged.
Would John Kerry be any different? There's no way to know for sure, but I'm reasonably certain he would. For one thing, he sees nuance. Just as Al Gore was slimed in the 2000 campaign for being intelligent, Kerry is getting slimed for being perceptive. (One of the things Republicans do well is run nasty campaigns, although this year's wolf commercial might indicate their streak is nearing an end). But perceiving subtlety and nuance is not a bad thing. Kerry is certainly up to the job of being president, but more importantly, the current president is not.
More than 100,000 Iraqis and more than 1,100 U.S. service people have been killed in the Iraq war. (You remember the Iraq war. It's the one where "major combat operations" ended in the spring of 2003, as proclaimed by a president who stood beneath a banner reading "Mission Accomplished.") If you've read all 1,001 reasons and you still really want to vote for Bush, there isn't much I can say that's likely to change your mind. But think about all those lives lost in this military campaign, and think about why we went there in the first place. Not the rhetorical reasons mouthed by Bush and Cheney and Rice and Powell, but actual reasons to take lives and lose lives in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction? Nope. Imminent threat? Uh-uh. Any sort of threat at all? Not so much. Keeping the weapons that Saddam didn't actually have out of the hands of terrorists Saddam wasn't actually in contact with? If that's enough of a reason for you, there's a job waiting for you in the Pentagon public-relations department.
Bush has been a failure in foreign relations, in protecting the environment, in job creation, in fiscal restraint, and in being, as he liked to say, "a uniter, not a divider." These are not my opinions. These are facts. Foreign relations: By alienating the UN and most of its members, Bush has virtually isolated the United States. The environment: He started with a repeal of Clinton administration restrictions on arsenic levels in water and continued through his bogus "Healthy Forest" and "Clean Skies" initiatives that produced effects diametrically opposite to their names. Job creation: No president since Herbert Hoover has presided over a net loss of jobs. Until Bush. Fiscal restraint: That tax-and-spend liberal Clinton left office with a federal budget surplus. Bush, through war spending and amazingly ill-timed tax cuts, turned that into the steepest deficits in U.S. history. And do I really need to spell out how Bush's four-year term has resulted in the most polarized electorate in memory?
If you're happy with the way things are -- with the color-coded death threats, and the alternating "wanted dead or alive"/"I don't think about him" approach to terrorist murderers, and the reflexive inability to acknowledge, let alone heed, alternative points of view -- then by all means, vote for Bush, or better yet, stay the hell home on Tuesday. Otherwise, come out to the polls on Election Day and help John Kerry take this nation back from the oligarchy that has controlled it for the last four years.
1,001 Reasons Not To Vote For Bush (Vol. 100)
991. Lila Lipscomb. (Yes, I finally saw Fahrenheit 9/11.)
992. In an article in its Nov. 8, 2004, edition, Newsweek includes this doubly surprising passage: "Both plans depend heavily on building significant Iraqi forces to take over security. But the truth is, neither party is fully reckoning with the reality of Iraq—which is that the insurgents, by most accounts, are winning. Even Secretary of State Colin Powell, a former general who stays in touch with the Joint Chiefs, has acknowledged this privately to friends in recent weeks, Newsweek has learned."
993. I don't know which is more surprising: that Colin Powell would be so candid, even privately, or that after his lies to the United Nations and the American people, Colin Powell still has friends.
994. This is just revolting. From an Oct. 30, 2004, New York Daily News article on the political ramifications of Osama bin Laden's videotaped message: "A senior GOP strategist added, 'anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush.' He called it 'a little gift,' saying it helps the President but doesn't guarantee his reelection."
995. Not everyone saw the bin Laden video as "a little gift." Kristen Breitweiser and Monica Gabrielle, whose husbands died on Sept. 11, 2001, offered up an open letter to Bush: "Our question to President Bush is: Why didn't you catch him when you promised us you would? Why is this mass murderer -- this madman -- still out there making videotapes and terrorizing our country three years after you promised our country that you would make us safe from him?"
996. From an article in the Oct. 29, 2004, Washington Post: "A Bush political appointee in the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection bureau drafted and distributed a public relations strategy designed to 'change perception' about the nation's security by repeating the message, in the weeks leading up to the presidential election, that America is safer, according to internal government documents."
997. Yes, that would be the "we don't do politics" Department of Homeland Security.
998. At Slate.com, author Daniel Benjamin provides yet another example of the Bush administration's inability to see where the real threats are: "The idea that states are the real issue and terrorists and their organizations are of secondary concern has been present throughout the Bush presidency....After 9/11, senior officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, simply refused to believe the assessment of the intelligence community that Iraq had no hand in the attack and that al-Qaida operated independently of state support. In the Pentagon's conduct of operations in Afghanistan, the overwhelming focus was on unseating the Taliban, the effective state power, while less attention was paid to pursuing al-Qaida, which had just killed nearly 3,000 people on American soil." (Via Kevin Drum)
999. From Maureen Dowd's Oct. 31, 2004, column in the New York Times: "The Bushies' campaign pitch follows their usual backward logic: Because we have failed to make you safe, you should re-elect us to make you safer. Because we haven't caught Osama in three years, you need us to catch Osama in the next four years. Because we didn't bother to secure explosives in Iraq, you can count on us to make sure those explosives aren't used against you."
1,000. A view from the U.K.: The Guardian, in an Oct. 30, 2004, editorial, says: "To adapt the words of Talleyrand, the Bush presidency has been not merely a crime but a mistake. Mr Bush has proved a terrifying failure in the world's most powerful office. He has made the world more angry, more dangerous and more divided -- not less. This, above all, is why it matters to us, as it should to Americans, that John Kerry is elected on Tuesday."
10.30.2004
1,001 Reasons Not To Vote For Bush (Vol. 99)
981. The lying. Oh, the lying. From an Oct. 30, 2004, article in the New York Times about a chapter in the 9/11 Commission report that still has not been made public: "Drawing from this unpublished part of the inquiry, the commission quietly asked the inspectors general at the Departments of Defense and Transportation to review what it had determined were broadly inaccurate accounts provided by several civil and military officials about efforts to track and chase the hijacked aircraft on Sept. 11." (Via Campaign Extra!)
982. So what were those broadly inaccurate accounts? From the Oct. 30, 2004, New York Times article: "In testimony before the commission, officials had described a quick response to the hijackings that narrowly missed intercepting some of the planes, but the commission's investigators later determined from documentary evidence that none of the military planes were anywhere near the four airliners."
983. And from that Oct. 30, 2004, Times article: "In addition, officials at the Federal Aviation Administration testified that they had notified the military within a few minutes of each hijacking, but the investigation found that tape recordings contradicted that assertion."
984. They might be hiding the truth about 9/11, but the Bush people aren't averse from exploiting the hell out of it. An Oct. 29, 2004, posting on BlueLemur.com by John Byrne of Raw Story describes an RNC ad approved by Bush-Cheney '04: "On the front side, the ad asks in red print, 'How Can John Kerry Lead America In A Time of War?' ... Following that, there are nine images of the front pages of Sept. 12, 2001 newspapers ... all of which display the smoking towers of the World Trade Center before they collapsed, killing some 2,600 people. One includes the approach of the plane."
985. The Blue Lemur site includes scans of the actual mailing, which went out to people in Pennsylvania. I wouldn't advise going unless your tolerance for conscienceless, shameless exploitation is much higher than mine. And your blood pressure is much lower.
986. In an Oct. 27, 2004, column, Dan Gillmor, a technology columnist for the San Jose Mercury News, wrote of Bush: "He and his allies have used terrorism to launch a massive assault on civil liberties. They are not just indifferent to liberty, they are actively hostile to it."
987. For instance? Dan Gillmor listed some examples in his Oct. 27, 2004, column: "He has expanded surveillance -- electronic and otherwise -- without adequate safeguards. He has had a mania for secrecy, shielding more and more government information from public view. ... This president has curbed dissent through intimidation. His attorney general practically labeled as traitors people who questioned the outrageously named 'Patriot Act,' for example. More recently, the Bush forces have excluded anyone who is not a declared supporter from being even in the vicinity of campaign events, and have even fenced off protesters in Orwellian 'free speech zones' far from the scenes."
988. In his Oct. 30, 2004, column, Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times gives us another glimpse -- several glimpses, actually -- of Bush the Flip-Flopper. Kristof reminds us of Bush's words and shows how they have no more than a cursory relationship with his deeds.
989. A sample: "Feb. 27, 2001: 'I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. ... We should approach our nation's budget as any prudent family would.' But Mr. Bush, with the help of a weak economy, has transformed the Clinton budget surpluses into huge deficits. Since Mr. Bush took office, the federal debt has increased by $2.1 trillion, or 40 percent."
990. And the kicker: "Sept. 2, 1999: 'Effective reform requires accountability. ... It is a sad story. High hopes, low achievement. Grand plans, unmet goals. My administration will do things differently.' Oh?"
10.29.2004
1,001 Reasons Not To Vote For Bush (Vol. 98)
971. For a poorly planned operation, the Iraq invasion was apparently a long time in the making, according to journalist Russ Baker in an Oct. 27, 2004, article posted at TomPaine.com: "Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography."
972. According to Russ Baker's Oct. 27, 2004, article, Mickey Herskowitz said that in 1999, Bush told him: "One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade … if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."
973. This charming tidbit is also in Russ Baker's Oct. 27, 2004, article: "In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe’s David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: 'It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam’s weapons stash,' wrote Nyhan. ' "I'd take 'em out," [Bush] grinned cavalierly, "take out the weapons of mass destruction…I’m surprised he’s still there," said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.’s father.' "
974. Another WTF?! moment, this time from the boss of the guy who praised the "brilliance" of the Iraq and Afghanistan attacks. In an Oct. 29, 2004, article, Reuters quotes a USA Today article that quotes Bush as saying, mind-bogglingly: "This campaign boils down to a matter of trust: Who has earned the trust of the American people?"
975. And still another WTF?! moment, from that same Oct. 29, 2004, Reuters article. It quotes USA Today quoting Bush as saying of John Kerry: "He's willing to go on the attack for political gain without knowing the facts on the ground."
976. Dedicated Swallowers of Fascism Department: On Oct. 28, 2004, Slate.com reported that at a Florida rally, Bush supporters followed a Republican lawmaker's cues and recited the following pledge: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."
977. According to an Oct. 27, 2004, AFP article, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg called on Bush to stop using her father's name for political gain: "It's hard for me to listen to President Bush invoking my father's memory to attack John Kerry. Senator Kerry has demonstrated his courage and commitment to a stronger America throughout his entire career."
978. In that Oct. 27, 2004, AFP article, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg said: "President Kennedy inspired and united the country and so will John Kerry. President Bush is doing just the opposite. All of us who revere the strength and resolve of President Kennedy will be supporting John Kerry on Election Day."
979. Another AFP article, this one published Oct. 29, 2004, after Osama bin Laden's tape was telecast nationwide, quotes a Bush flack saying there should be a double standard: "Speaking to reporters outside the campaign rally here, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said that the tape should not affect the way Bush campaigns but that Kerry should have marked a 12-hour truce." (Via Josh Marshall)
980. Gen. Wesley Clark finally voices what should be common knowledge: On HBO's Oct. 29, 2004, edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, he said: "If George Bush had done his job as Commander in Chief before 9/11 we would never have had the strikes of 9/11." (Via Americablog)
1,001 Reasons Not To Vote For Bush (Vol. 97)
961. Tip of the Iceberg Department: Knight Ridder reported Oct. 28, 2004, that those missing 380 tons of explosives are only part of the problem: "Huge amounts of arms and ammunition were stolen from military sites, and there's 'ample evidence' that Iraqi insurgents are firing looted weapons at U.S. troops and using some of them in car bombs and improvised explosive devices, said a senior U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity."
962. From that Oct. 28, 2004, Knight Ridder report: "In a new disclosure, the senior U.S. military officer and another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition he not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that an Iraqi working for U.S. intelligence alerted U.S. troops stationed near the al Qaqaa weapons facility that the installation was being looted shortly after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003."
963. Why didn't they do anything? The Oct. 28, 2004, Knight Ridder article quotes a senior U.S. military officer who served in Iraq: "That was one of numerous times when Iraqis warned us that ammo dumps and other places were being looted and we weren't able to respond because we didn't have anyone to send."
964. And there's this Ahmad Chalaby footnote in the Oct. 28, 2004, Knight Ridder article: "Al Qaqaa was on a classified list of Iraqi weapons facilities that the CIA provided to Pentagon and military officials before the invasion, said the U.S. intelligence official. But when the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command produced their own list of sites that a limited number of U.S. 'exploitation teams' should search, priority was given to those identified by exiled Iraqi opposition groups, he said. Al Qaqaa wasn't one of them."
965. Another rocker against Bush: The Associated Press reported Oct. 29, 2004, that the president's campaign abruptly stopped using the song "Still the One" after its composer complained.
966. From that Oct. 29, 2004, article about Orleans songwriter John Hall: "Hall, still a working musician at 56, wrote "Still the One" with his then-wife, Johanna D. Hall. The two, as well as surviving members of the band, are supporters of Democratic Sen. John Kerry and didn't want their work used to promote Bush's re-election."
967. Also from that Oct. 29, 2004, AP article: "Later, upon learning of the campaign's decision to pull the song, Hall welcomed the news and said, 'It's obviously attractive as a slogan, but this lection should be about content and facts.' "
968. With a quote like that, you know he isn't a Bush supporter.
969. Pissing off its few remaining allies, the Bush team let slip that Russia might have absconded with some of those missing 380 tons of weapons. An Oct. 29, 2004, Reuters article has this less-than-amiable response from a Russian official: " 'You can't really take statements like this as anything but far-fetched rubbish,' said spokesman Vyacheslav Sedov."
970. I literally took my head in my hands when I read this one. From an Oct. 29, 2004, Associated Press story: "At an airport rally at a hangar in Montoursville, Pa., Cheney said the U.S. invasions of 'Afghanistan and Iraq will be studied for years for their brilliance.' "
1,001 Reasons Not To Vote For Bush (Vol. 96)
951. Bruce Springsteen, Oct. 13, 2004: "Mislead a nation to war, a man loses his job. It ain't rocket science."
952. More voter-suppression shenanigans, this time in Ohio: A Lake County TV station, WKYC-TV, reported Oct. 28, 2004, that "newly registered voters signed up by the Kerry or Capri Cafaro campaigns or the NAACP" -- Cafaro is a Democratic candidate for Congress -- are getting letters telling them "their registrations are illegal and they will not be able to vote." (Via Campaign Extra!)
953. The no-surprise angle of WKYC-TV's Oct. 28, 2004, report: " 'That was not authorized by the Board of Elections,' said Elections Director Jan Clair. 'It was not mailed by the Lake County Board of Elections.' "
954. This is kind of staggering. From an Oct. 28, 2004, Associated Press article: "A survey of deaths in Iraqi households estimates that as many as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18 months after the U.S. invasion than would be expected based on the death rate before the war."
955. Yeah, yeah, I know. War is hell and all that. But that Oct. 28, 2004, AP article quotes the researchers' report: "Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children."
956. In his Oct. 29, 2004, column in the New York Times, Paul Krugman sums up just why the Al Qaqaa debacle is so damaging to the Bushies that they're spinning frantically to blame, er, John Kerry and the media: "U.S. soldiers passed through Al Qaqaa, a crucial munitions dump, but were never told that it was important to secure the site. If administration officials object that they couldn't have spared enough troops to guard the site, they're admitting that they went in without enough troops."
957. In his Oct. 28, 2004, column in the New York Times, Bob Herbert offers a counterpoint to all those "Kerry's bashing the troops!" claims by Bush operatives who are, in fact, bashing the troops: "The thing to always keep in mind about our troops in Iraq is that they were sent to fight the wrong war. America's clearly defined and unmistakable enemy, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, was in Afghanistan. So the men and women fighting and dying in Iraq were thrown into a pointless, wholly unnecessary conflict."
958. In that Oct. 28, 2004, column, Bob Herbert quotes Times reporter Edward Wong, who interviewed marines in Ramadi: "They said the Iraqi police and National Guard are unhelpful at best and enemy agents at worst, raising doubts about President Bush's assertion that local forces would soon help relieve the policing duties of the 138,000 American troops in Iraq."
959. According to Salon.com, that bulge in Bush's back during the debates actually was a listening device.
960. In an Oct. 27, 2004, column in the Washington Post, Richard Cohen said that if he were the headline writer, he'd title his piece "Impeach George Bush." He adds: "Of course, I realize there's no chance Congress would impeach the president at this point or under almost any circumstance. It somehow reserves its outrage for lying about sex under oath and not, as now seems clear, the making of war under false pretenses. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, no one died in the White House pantry."
