I Read Charlie Madigan So You Don’t Have To


In today’s Trib, columnist Charlie Madigan lets loose a screaming pantload of bullshit.
His column begins by making idiotic assertion after idiotic assertion as to why, in his opinion, impeaching George W. Bush is not a good idea:

“He has some time left to straighten things out.”

…or fuck them up even further. Iran, anyone?

“The war is not going well because they only go well when they end.”

…Madigan channeling Sun Tzu fits about as well as that goofy collar he’s always wearing.

“Bush will or won’t solve his problems and then he and the whole pack of dubious players who came in with him will be gone.”

…aren’t “his” problems “our” problems, Charlie? Will he or won’t he solve those problems? Charlie doesn’t seem to care either way.

“This is a democracy, not a business. You can push an unpopular chief executive officer out the window anytime you want. You can’t do that with a president because the office is much bigger than the man who sits in it.”

…by his own logic, shouldn’t a man that diminishes the office be pushed- or thrown- out the window?

“There are many reasons I don’t want to be on that impeachment bandwagon, the thought of ‘President Dick Cheney’ being just one.”

…Cheney would turn to dust once subjected to the public pressures of the Presidency, much like a vampire in sunlight. I don’t like the idea of President Cheney either, but you can’t disregard lawbreaking simply because you don’t like the next guy in line. After all, the office is bigger than the man, right Charlie? Charlie?

“Another one is the divisiveness. This nation needs unity in the face of its many challenges.”

…Bush, and the Republican party, are the cause of the divisiveness, not the solution.

“But we can’t impeach a president just because people don’t like the job he is doing.”

..no, impeachment must be retained as an option of last resort, only to be utilized for real criminals- people who enjoy oral sex, for example.

What Madigan does not seem to comprehend is that not only has Bush been a miserable, unmitigated failure on nearly every front, he has also repeatedly and admittedly broken the law. Madigan swats this away with a dismissive “If stupidity were a high crime or a misdemeanor, we would all be in prison.”

No Charlie, if stupidity were a high crime and misdemeanor, you and Georgie would be sharing a cell on death row. Those that are arguing for impeachment are not doing so on the grounds of stupidity- although we would probably have a solid case. Nor do we seek impeachment simply because we do not like Bush. We seek impeachment because the president has broken the law, has launched an illegal war, has countenanced torture and kidnappings in the name of national security and will continue to do so until he is stopped.

But it gets better- Charlie then goes on to catalog some of the most ludicrous statements made by supporters of the war in Iraq, back in the golden years of 2003-2004, seemingly blissfully unaware that his own assertions will no doubt appear in a post-impeachment wrap-up under the heading “Why Did So Many Journalists Argue Against Impeachment?”

4 Comments so far

  1. charlie madigan (unregistered) on March 30th, 2006 @ 3:35 pm

    High crimes and misdemeanors. that’s it. nothing else will do.

  2. nikkos (unregistered) on March 30th, 2006 @ 3:39 pm

    Mr. Madigan-

    Assuming you’re the real Mr. Madigan, your comment begs the question:

    Do you not believe or agree that President Bush is ALREADY guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?

    If not, why not?

    Thanks for stopping by.

  3. charlie madigan (unregistered) on March 30th, 2006 @ 4:05 pm

    Do I determine guilt? Do I file charges? No on both counts. You, I suspect, know only what you choose to read or hear, which also does not add up to evidence, just words or noises. So, what this situation needs is a bill of particulars, a house investigation, a house prosecution and a senate conviction. then we can talk about impeachment. I think the clinton impeachment was wrong, too. I think the Nixon impeachment was on the button and I might have argued the same for Lyndon Johnson had we known as much about the Gulf of Tonkin incident as we know today. Anyhow, you can certainly be sure it’s me and it has been nice batting this back and forth with you. good luck on your blog. Great potential. Shave a little of the bile out of it and turn up your considerable wit and it will read better, I think. Charlie.

  4. nikkos (unregistered) on March 30th, 2006 @ 4:24 pm

    Mr. Madigan-

    Thanks again for stopping by and offering your two cents and advice. Yes, rhetorical flourishes such as “screaming pantload of bullshit” are not likely to land my mug in the Trib next to a freshly minted column any time soon, but then again, if Ben Domenech can get a job at a national newspaper, then perhaps not all hope is lost.

    That being said, you really did not answer my question. I know as well as you do that neither you nor I are capable of bringing articles of impeachment. That is the job of our feckless representatives in Congress. In order for them to represent our will, however, we must express it. The fact that Congress holds the power to initiate an investigation does not prohibit you nor I from forming an opinion on the matter and expressing it. As a columnist, that is your vocation, after all. As a citizen, I see it as my civic duty.

    In order to move beyond “words and noises,” I herewith offer my reasons for arguing for impeachment:
    1.) The simple fact that Bush et al lied to the American people, and to Congress, in order to start an unjust, immoral and illegal pre-emptive war in Iraq.

    2.) Further, in the conduct of said war, the Bush administration has utilized barbaric and illegal measures: torture, kidnapping (aka “extraordinary rendition”), holding American citizens as well as other battlefield detainees incommunicado and without legal representation and has spied on innocent Americans (as he himself admitted, and as he continues to do).

    This is not a full accounting of a bill of particulars, as you call it, but is certainly a good enough place to start. As I have reminded my frequent sparring partners on this blog, politics is not baseball. We don’t need three strikes before Bush is out. Any one of the above points is sufficient to implement his consitutional ouster.

    For this andd other political discussions, please stop by Metblogs again and/or join the ruckus at myfriendscallmenikkos.blogspot.com

    In regards to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, what do you make of the NYT recently confirming the authenticity of a British memo which states that Bush and Blair discussed painting a U.S. plane in UN colors in the hopes Saddam would shoot it down and thus provide a rationale for war which Americans could rally behind?

    Yes, discussing such a plan is not rounds for impeachment (at least I don’t think it is) but it does provide a window into the inner machinations of the Bush/Blair runup to war. Obviously, at this point Bush had already decided that war was the answer (despite his public assurances- lies-to the contrary) and he sought to hasten the campaign.

    I couldn’t help but think of Johnson as Bush trotted out his guest worker/amnesty plan for illegal immigrants. The only way for Bush to salvage his istorical reputation at this point would be to do something along the lines of Johnson’s tireless and courageous Civil Rights campaign. You know, so his hagiographers can point out that yes, he may have kiled untold numbers of people, but he brought “freedom!” to 12 million illegal Americans. It’s never too early to start spinning!

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.