The AP article showed a degree of rationality until the reporter tipped his hand. After sparse coverage of the panel of distinguished witnesses, their choice for mockery by proxy emerged:
"One witness, law professor Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason University, said he was "astonished at the mood in this room."
"The tone of these deliberations is slightly demented," Rabkin said.
"You should all remind yourselves that the rest of the country is not necessarily in this same bubble in which people think it is reasonable to describe the president as if he were Caligula." Associated Press, July 26, 2008
Did the Associated Press know that law professor and climate change skeptic Rabkin wrote an article called "Gitmo detainees are not ordinary felons" in which he minimizes abuse there and fails to mention extreme punishments and torture? We have to wonder if Rabkin ever read this or thisphotographs from Abu Ghraib. about Guantanamo or looked at the
The AP reporter chose to end the article with academic Rabkin's implication that supporting impeachment is the equivalent of seeing Bush "as if he were Caligula." Most members of a high school debate team would easily note that this statement involves at least two logical fallacies - "poisoning the well" and a "false dilemma." In addition, it's simply wrong. So much for AP sourcing.
From this review of the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Associated Press, it's clear that motivated citizens are more informed and generate much better analysis than the press.
The People Know
A clear majority of citizens knew that the war in Iraq was a bad idea from the start. In mid December 2002, a majority of Republicans and Democrats opposed an invasion prior to the completion of thorough weapons inspections. Citizens are clear that Bush is one of the very worst presidentsThey never did and never will abide by the viscous torture administered at the order of the Bush-Cheney zealots. And they're not likely to "close this chapter and move on" without a full investigation the events leading to war and those responsible. in our history.
In fact, it's reasonable to predict that the majority of citizens will be adamant in their demands for answers to the following questions.
How were the White House and many in the top tier of the media able to spread "fraudulent misrepresentations" about Iraq?
Given the deliberate misrepresentations that justified the war, isn't the president directly responsible for the tens of thousands lost and injured U.S. soldiers and the over 1.0 million Iraqi citizens killed in civil strife? What responsibility do his subordinates and the enablers in the media bear for the deaths and injuries?
How can they justify a $3.0 trillion dollars for a war based on lies and who benefited?
How could the president and his supporters conduct a war against people who supposedly "hate our freedoms" by taking away those freedoms as quickly as possible? What motivation was there to remove fundamental constitutional guarantees?
How do citizens make sure that open hearings take place and that justice follows?
The July 25, 2008 congressiona hearingl was just the beginning.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
