Oliver Willis has finally caught moonbat disease.
First he says the President and the Vice President killed 600 troops and then says the President should be impeached.
Why? Because of this article in the Atlantic Monthly. I read it. There’s not really much new here. And in the end, Fallows does nothing but compare liberals to conservatives and mentions the supposed coming disaster in Iraq.
That’s Jay Caruso, writing for Classless Warfare. In fairness to Oliver, here’s what he actually said:
Before I read this story in its entirety, I consistently disagreed with those who said President Bush should be impeached. Unlike the GOP and their ilk, I don’t believe you reach for the constitutional switch over stupid dalliances but rather systematic abuses of power that denigrate the very idea of the United States. George Bush’s misconduct, his very high level of disinterest in the most important cause a nation can involve itself in, certainly lays the groundwork for why he should be removed from office – either via impeachment or (preferably) this November’s election.
And here’s the graf (link above) that tipped over into moonbat territory:
This is the place to note that in several months of interviews I never once heard someone say “We took this step because the President indicated …” or “The President really wanted …” Instead I heard “Rumsfeld wanted,” “Powell thought,” “The Vice President pushed,” “Bremer asked,” and so on. One need only compare this with any discussion of foreign policy in Reagan’s or Clinton’s Administration-or Nixon’s, or Kennedy’s, or Johnson’s, or most others-to sense how unusual is the absence of the President as prime mover. The other conspicuously absent figure was Condoleezza Rice, even after she was supposedly put in charge of coordinating Administration policy on Iraq, last October. It is possible that the President’s confidants are so discreet that they have kept all his decisions and instructions secret. But that would run counter to the fundamental nature of bureaucratic Washington, where people cite a President’s authority whenever they possibly can (“The President feels strongly about this, so …”).
Hardly damning stuff. We know how Bush works — Harvard MBA-style. Set the tone, find the consensus, give the orders. None of what I see here contradicts that. And while it might not be my first choice to run an Administration during war, Willis should think it actually beats the alternative.
That is to say, a less managerial President would have taken us to war in Iraq by the Spring of 2002. Is that the result Willis would have wanted? Hardly — he just wants Bush out of office. No harm there, it’s the nature of the partisan game.
I can’t call Oliver a moonbat — we’ll all get a little crazy before this campaign is over. But I can say he’s looking a little too hard for something that isn’t really there — and Jay might be a little too eager to damn him for it.