![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
ITMFA, bitches, with ME IN IT!
My week has just taken an abrupt turn to the SQUEE!
If it's not at the top when you click the link, scroll down.
Damn. I mean, damn. That's me. That's ME.
EDIT: A direct link.
If it's not at the top when you click the link, scroll down.
Damn. I mean, damn. That's me. That's ME.
EDIT: A direct link.
no subject
And OMG, how cute are you?
no subject
And thanks! :D
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
You'd think they'd be passing those out willy-nilly here on my supposedly liberal college campus.
WRONG.
I've not seen a single one.
no subject
Actually, even in Kansas City, I haven't seen any others, but people have recognized mine.
no subject
Although the "MFA" part of that always makes me think "Master of Fine Arts".
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I may get one!
(Um, we are talking about impeaching Justice Kennedy, right?)
Re: I may get one!
That would be hilarious. You should totally buy one.
Re: I may get one!
Dan Savage was loudly, fiercely, vehemently for the invasion of Iraq. Wrote a lot about it at the time.
I guess he figures that if he says he's for impeachment now, people will forgive or forget his ideological deviationism then...
Re: I may get one!
My primary reason for wanting him out of the White House is the lying, which kind of encompasses the war to me.
Savage arguments for the war
As for the "lies" George Bush told: I honestly don't know what lies you have in mind. When people talk about his "lies", they usually seem to mean one of two things.
First, they may be arguing that Bush knew, beforehand, that there were no Iraqi WMDs, and yet consciously lied about it, claiming there were--and did this despite already having authorization to go to war in Iraq (he won that authorization almost entirely by arguing about Iraq's intent to get those weapons, his violation of past agreements, and his oppression of the Iraqi people--none of which are seriously in question)--and did this despite knowing that when he did invade and didn't find weapons, it would be a huge embarassment for him.
I don't find this credible. Leaving aside that no other world leader was claiming that Iraq lacked chemical weapons (and many anti-war activists talked about the thousands that would die when Saddam unleashed those weapons), and leaving aside questions of Bush's moral worth or lack of it--I think if he'd known Iraq had no chemical weapons, he would have put in more weasel words so he wouldn't be so embarassed when those weapons didn't turn up.
If you're saying "Bush said things that turned out to be untrue", I absolutely agree. But "Bush was mistaken on several important points!" is a lousy bumper-sticker, and not much of an argument for impeachment.
Or the other "Bush Lied" argument that I've seen amounts to, "Bush says X. No honest person can really mean X. Therefore, he's lying." And they usually say it about an X which I happen to believe, or about an X which he never actually said--so again, I tend not to be convinced.
If you think his policies are bad, that's reason to work to defeat him (there was an excellent opportunity a couple of years back). But we only impeach presidents for crimes. And if you can't seriously back a claim that he committed a crime, it just trivializes the word "impeach". If you use it casually, people come to understand that from your lips, "Impeach Bush" means nothing more than "I dislike Bush and would rather he weren't president".
Re: Savage arguments for the war
no subject
no subject
no subject