Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

88% of 444000 people on MSNBC poll call for impeachment of President Bush

May 21st, 2007 . by Matt

Even accounting for anti-Bush activists marshaling their numbers to push the poll in that direction, I doubt it would account for the majority of the 444000 people polled.

impeach bush

Maybe the people are fed up with the lack of accountability. No one in the administration, including President Bush, has ever accepted any responsibility for what is going in Iraq, repeatedly declaring victory, or “mission accomplished”, and continually to the present day insisting there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and Al-Queda terrorists, despite the clear reality to the contrary.

Bill Clinton faced impeachment for lying about a bit of oral massage. How many American (not to mention Iraqi) dead will it take for President Bush to be impeached? To be fair, any impeachment would need to include Vice President Cheney as well since he is as responsible as the President.


25 Responses to “88% of 444000 people on MSNBC poll call for impeachment of President Bush”

  1. comment number 1 by: eli

    Right now it probably has less to do with Iraq and more to do with the Amnesty deal.

  2. comment number 2 by: infimum

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/05/22/impeachment/index.html

    To this day, the primitive feeling that in response to 9/11 we had to hit hard at “the enemy,” whoever that might be, is a sacred cow. America’s deference to the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach is profound: It’s the gut belief that still drives Bush supporters and leads them to regard war critics as contemptible appeasers. This is why Bush endlessly repeats his mantra “We’re staying on the attack.”

    The unpleasant truth is that Bush did what a lot of Americans wanted him to. And when it became clear after the fact that Bush had lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, it made no sense for those Americans to turn on him. Truth was never their major concern anyway — revenge was. And if we took revenge on the wrong person, well, better a misplaced revenge than none at all.

  3. comment number 3 by: Rip

    Matt, you’re going to have to back up your argument with sources because you are either grossly misinformed or have an extremely skewed sense of reality.

  4. comment number 4 by: Matt

    Matt, you’re going to have to back up your argument with sources because you are either grossly misinformed or have an extremely skewed sense of reality.

    What do you mean? Point out where I am in error.

  5. comment number 5 by: Rip

    No one in the administration, including President Bush, has ever accepted any responsibility for what is going in Iraq

    Bush accepts responsibility for ‘mistakes’:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-10-bush-iraq_x.htm

    repeatedly declaring victory or “mission accomplished”

    Declaring victory for what? Elaborate and provide sources to three declarations of victory that fit your description of “victory.”

    and continually to the present day insisting there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and Al-Queda terrorists

    Nobody in the administration continues to insist there are WMD. If that’s what you’ve heard, provide a source. And you know very well Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. But maybe you mean before 2003? Nobody in the administration has ever claimed otherwise.

    Bill Clinton faced impeachment for lying about a bit of oral massage. How many American (not to mention Iraqi) dead will it take for President Bush to be impeached? To be fair, any impeachment would need to include Vice President Cheney as well since he is as responsible as the President.

    This is not China. We don’t arbitrarily decide which laws to enforce and which to let slide. Bill Clinton broke the law. Your feelings about the insignificance of perjury are irrelevant.

    We also don’t impeach presidents for arbitrary reasons like the number of dead soldiers or Iraqi civilians. Bush received authorization for the war from Congress. He has not broken any laws.

    Also, there is no law that requires the impeachment of the vice president too. Your idea of fairness, like everyone else on the planet, is flawed as a result of cognitive biases. And that is why we follow the rule of law, and not what some people think is “fair.” Maybe you can expand upon your “to be fair” argument?

  6. comment number 6 by: mattrosencrance

    As an American, I’d like to say that Bush’s actions probably warrant action against him, up to and including impeachment.

    I would also like to add that despite the legal soundness of that, it would be destabilizing and counterproductive for the United States and the world as a whole to do so.

    In the long run the cure is worse than the disease.

  7. comment number 7 by: Matt

    Bush accepts responsibility for ‘mistakes’:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-10-bush-iraq_x.htm

    In that link, President Bush said –

    “The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me,” Bush said. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”

    I am not talking about the “mistakes” that President Bush is talking about in that article. He is clearly referring to mistakes in regards to tactics or strategy in prosecuting the war. What I am referring to is President Bush misleading the American people, the congress, and the UN, in order to drum up support for the invasion of Iraq. There has been no accountability for that. When I say misleading I mean misleading about the presence of WMD, misleading about Iraqi collaboration with Al-Queda, and misleading about imminent Iraqi acquisition of nuclear weapons.

    Declaring victory for what? Elaborate and provide sources to three declarations of victory that fit your description of “victory.”

    President Bush landed a jet on an aircraft carrier, and gave a speech in front of a banner saying “mission accomplished”. President Bush also said “In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”. On many other occasions, President Bush has said that victory would be soon, but he changed his rhetoric about that in 2006, saying it would take more time.

    Nobody in the administration continues to insist there are WMD. If that’s what you’ve heard, provide a source.

    Nobody? Perhaps you should show some links in which the White House admits there were no WMD. As late as 2004, President Bush said this, and to my knowledge has never repudiated it.

    Not Bush. He’s impervious to evidence. “I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where [the WMD] are,” he told Time’s John Dickerson at the press conference. A year after Saddam’s ouster and four months after Saddam’s capture, Bush continued to insist that “people who should know about weapons” are still “worried about getting killed, and therefore they’re not going to talk. … We’ll find out the truth about the weapons at some point.” You can agree or disagree with this theory. But you can’t falsify it.

    President Bush even said that WMD had been found, back in 2003.

    President Bush had never come clean about WMD to my knowledge, instead he has been changing the subject, saying that it is important to “spread democracy”, and such things.

    And you know very well Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. But maybe you mean before 2003? Nobody in the administration has ever claimed otherwise.

    The administration led by President Bush has always pushed the idea that Iraq was collaborating with Al-Queda.

    1. President Bush called the invasion of Iraq “one victory in a war on terror.”

    2. State of the Union address by President Bush in 2003.

    Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

    That is not linking Iraq with Al-Queda and terrorism?

    3. The administration represented by Secretary of State Colin Powell presented “evidence” to the UN of Al-Queda training under the auspices of the Iraqi government before the invasion of Iraq. It was also claimed by Secretary of State Colin Powell that a senior Al-Queda figure received medical treatment in Baghdad with the permission of the Iraqi government.

    “But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants.

    Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.

    You see a picture of this camp.

    The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch — image a pinch of salt — less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal.”

    This falsehood linking Al-Queda to the Iraqi government was exploded, but the administration never admitted that it was wrong, or that it had told falsehoods (President Bush was still talking about terrorism long after this).

    What is worse is that by brandishing photos of the camp at the UN, the terrorists were given forewarning, and the terrorists at the camp were able to escape. The area was under US influence and they could have taken them out. Here is a clear cut case of the US government abandoning the war on terror to go after Iraq, which has nothing to do with terrorism. Yes, there are terrorists in Iraq now, and that is blowback from the invasion. President Bush created terrorists where there were none before.

    This is not China. We don’t arbitrarily decide which laws to enforce and which to let slide. Bill Clinton broke the law. Your feelings about the insignificance of perjury are irrelevant.

    No, I find perjury to be a serious crime, and a very serious crime when a President does it. However, it pales behind the deeds of President Bush, which certainly fit the bill for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. That President Bush has not been to task makes me think that a decision to arbitrarily let this slide has been made.

    We also don’t impeach presidents for arbitrary reasons like the number of dead soldiers or Iraqi civilians. Bush received authorization for the war from Congress. He has not broken any laws.

    I am not saying that President Bush should be impeached because of dead soldiers. I am talking about the way he mislead the American people, the congress, the UN, and then got a bunch of soldiers killed, wasted untold billions, and damaged national security on his Iraq adventure. The congress was mislead by President Bush, and if they had not been, they probably would not have authorized the invasion of Iraq. By the way, the President has broken many laws. Here is a draft impeachment of President Bush detailing his many crimes against US law..

    Also, there is no law that requires the impeachment of the vice president too. Your idea of fairness, like everyone else on the planet, is flawed as a result of cognitive biases. And that is why we follow the rule of law, and not what some people think is “fair.” Maybe you can expand upon your “to be fair” argument?

    Vice President Cheney is guilty of the same “high crimes and misdemeanors” as President Bush. It makes sense to include him in the proceedings.

    Anyway, when attempting to debate (hopefully a friendly debate), it is probably not a good idea to accuse the other side of being “grossly misinformed or have an extremely skewed sense of reality” when you are not so sure of things yourself.

  8. comment number 8 by: kjeff

    Matt,
    Have you read GQ’s The People V. Richard Cheney? It’s from the March issue I think. I know it’s GQ, but hey… It’s still an interesting read. Here’s the link.
    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022207N.shtml

  9. comment number 9 by: Matt

    Matt,
    Have you read GQ’s The People V. Richard Cheney? It’s from the March issue I think. I know it’s GQ, but hey… It’s still an interesting read. Here’s the link.
    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022207N.shtml

    I have not, but I will. Thanks.

  10. comment number 10 by: Rip

    I am not talking about the “mistakes” that President Bush is talking about in that article. He is clearly referring to mistakes in regards to tactics or strategy in prosecuting the war. What I am referring to is President Bush misleading the American people, the congress, and the UN, in order to drum up support for the invasion of Iraq. There has been no accountability for that. When I say misleading I mean misleading about the presence of WMD, misleading about Iraqi collaboration with Al-Queda, and misleading about imminent Iraqi acquisition of nuclear weapons.

    “No one in the administration, including President Bush, has ever accepted any responsibility for what is going [on] in Iraq.” That reads like it has nothing to do with the events leading up to the war. But if you want to extend it to include Bush’s rationale for invading Iraq, I don’t see any reason why Bush couldn’t be saying the same thing.

    Furthermore, the reason for accepting responsiblity depends upon the subjective perception of culpability in the act of “misleading.” So that will be an entirely new debate that I don’t have time to address.

    President Bush landed a jet on an aircraft carrier, and gave a speech in front of a banner saying “mission accomplished”. President Bush also said “In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”. On many other occasions, President Bush has said that victory would be soon, but he changed his rhetoric about that in 2006, saying it would take more time.

    You didn’t answer my question, which asked what you meant by “victory,” but I guess you mean victory in the overall Iraq war, which is difficult to define as well. As for major military operations against Saddam’s regime, well, you know the outcome. You still haven’t provided sources to
    “repeated” declarations of “victory” or “mission accomplished.” One “mission accomplished” sign suggested by the US Navy, which actually did accomplish their mission, is not “repeated” declarations.

    Nobody? Perhaps you should show some links in which the White House admits there were no WMD.

    “Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there,” Bush said.

    The administration led by President Bush has always pushed the idea that Iraq was collaborating with Al-Queda.

    Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between
    Saddam and al Qaeda

    However, it pales behind the deeds of President Bush, which certainly fit the bill for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

    Good luck proving that in a court of law.

    I am not saying that President Bush should be impeached because of dead soldiers.

    I can’t think of any other implication behind this statement, “How many American (not to mention Iraqi) dead will it take for President Bush to be impeached?” That is obviously a rhetorical question, but it demands a numerical answer which would be a point at which Bush would be impeached. So, I’m sure you can understand that it sounds like you are calling for impeachment based on dead soldiers. But I do like the way you spin it below:

    I am talking about the way he mislead the American people, the congress, the UN, and then got a bunch of soldiers killed, wasted untold billions, and damaged national security on his Iraq adventure. The congress was mislead by President Bush, and if they had not been, they probably would not have authorized the invasion of Iraq. By the way, the President has broken many laws. Here is a draft impeachment of President Bush detailing his many crimes against US law..

    Yeah thanks for this. Lawmakers sometimes introduce resolutions outlining articles of impeachment for purely political reasons. I can also find a myriad of links that dispute any law has been broken. It’s just not that clear-cut.

    I am also having trouble trying to define the point at which policymakers become responsible for mistakes based on faulty evidence. Every Western intelligence outfit overwhelmingly agreed with the assumption that Saddam still had stockpiles of WMD.

    Vice President Cheney is guilty of the same “high crimes and misdemeanors” as President Bush. It makes sense to include him in the proceedings.

    According to what law or justification? Does the guilt just apply to everyone in the administration? What about all of Congress and the entire government? Or is this just something about your idea of fairness again?

    Anyway, when attempting to debate (hopefully a friendly debate), it is probably not a good idea to accuse the other side of being “grossly misinformed or have an extremely skewed sense of reality” when you are not so sure of things yourself.

    I still believe you are grossly misinformed and have an extremely skewed sense of reality. If you take that personally, I don’t know what to tell ya. I like your blog at least.

  11. comment number 11 by: Brian

    Wow, unbelievable. Did anyone believe Mr. Bush when he made his case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I think they could impeach him just for his indiscreet lying throughout his tenure.

  12. comment number 12 by: kjeff

    Rip,

    Furthermore, the reason for accepting responsiblity depends upon the subjective perception of culpability in the act of “misleading.”

    Clintonian…as in “the subjective perception culpability in the act of” ‘sex’? Let’s not impeach Pres. Bush… It’ll just going to be A.G. Gonzales redux, “I don’t know…I don’t recall. Ask Dick” Let’s do Cheney…he’s more…how should I say it…prone to have Jack’s “You can’t handle the truth” moment.

  13. comment number 13 by: Matt

    Wow, unbelievable. Did anyone believe Mr. Bush when he made his case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

    Not me (under username name shakuhachi).

  14. comment number 14 by: stumpjumper

    WMD can be found in their backyard.

    http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/radioactive-boy-scout

    It is unrelated but thought was cool:-)

  15. comment number 15 by: Matt

    You didn’t answer my question, which asked what you meant by “victory,” but I guess you mean victory in the overall Iraq war, which is difficult to define as well. As for major military operations against Saddam’s regime, well, you know the outcome. You still haven’t provided sources to
    “repeated” declarations of “victory” or “mission accomplished.” One “mission accomplished” sign suggested by the US Navy, which actually did accomplish their mission, is not “repeated” declarations.

    My bad.

    “Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there,” Bush said.

    You got me there. I had forgotten that President Bush had blamed the CIA for his malfeasance. I think the overall pattern was of the administration ignoring the CIA. Even I knew that what the President was saying was false. Another reason to impeach President Bush, in my opinion.

    Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between Saddam and al Qaeda

    Your link says –

    Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

    THE PRESIDENT: I can’t make that claim.

    A direct link to the hijackers on 9/11, not collaboration with Al-Queda, which had always been pushed by President Bush and his administration.

    Three days before that in the State of the Union address, President Bush invoked imagery of 9/11 and even more dangerous hijackers armed by Iraq.

    In February after what President Bush said in your link, Secretary of State Colin Powell was before the UN declaring that Iraq was collaborating with Al-Queda.

    President Bush also called the invasion of Iraq a “victory in the war on terror”.

    Kjeff’s link also has plenty of money quotes from Vice President Cheney.

    (a) March 17, 2002: “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.”

    (b) March 19, 2002: “We know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.”

    (c) March 24, 2002: “He is actively pursuing nuclear weapons.”

    (d) May 19, 2002: “We know he’s got chemical and biological…we know he’s working on nuclear.”

    (e) August 26, 2002: “We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons… Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

    (f) March 16, 2003: “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

    (3) At the same time, despite overwhelming skepticism within the government of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda – resulting in the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission that “no credible evidence” for such a link existed, and the CIA’s determination that Hussein “did not have a relationship” with Al Qaeda – the vice president continued to insist that the relationship had been confirmed, including:

    (a) December 2, 2002: “His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.”

    (b) January 30, 2003: “His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.”

    (c) March 16, 2003: “We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.”

    (d) September 14, 2003: “We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons.”

    (e) October 10, 2003: “He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda – providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.”

    (f) January 9, 2004: “Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services…have worked together on a number of occasions.”

    (g) January 22, 2004: “There’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government”

    (h) June 18, 2004: “There clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming.”

    Yeah thanks for this. Lawmakers sometimes introduce resolutions outlining articles of impeachment for purely political reasons. I can also find a myriad of links that dispute any law has been broken. It’s just not that clear-cut.

    I am also having trouble trying to define the point at which policymakers become responsible for mistakes based on faulty evidence. Every Western intelligence outfit overwhelmingly agreed with the assumption that Saddam still had stockpiles of WMD.

    I disagree. The evidence points to intelligence having been manipulated by the administration. Geez, even I knew back then what they were saying was nonsense. Don’t tell me you bought the lies.

    According to what law or justification? Does the guilt just apply to everyone in the administration? What about all of Congress and the entire government? Or is this just something about your idea of fairness again?

    See quotes above, plus he supported President Bush in all other aspects. Allowing him to remain is just too dangerous, from the perspective of cover up, abuse of power, and continuance of policies based on lies spread by him.

    As for the meaning of “misleading”, that is just sophistry. If you want to believe that President Bush was totally sincere and was manipulated by others into going to war, that is fine because incompetence can be dealt with by impeachment as well.

  16. comment number 16 by: usinkorea

    Didn’t read the comments beyond the first few—

    I guess since Clinton was impeached, we will have to go through these pseudo-debates about whether the current president should be impeached or not for about 2 decades (regardless of who is in the White House).

    Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

    If someone can show me good evidence where Bush lied under oath, I’ll agree that we should impeach him.

    Otherwise, taking such a measure for only the third (I think it is the third) time in our nation’s history is absurd.

    This poll is absurd too.

    It is an unscientific poll – an internet one, right? and I am taking it it was not limited to just Americans?

    Hell, we’ve seen Korean netizens along swamp CNN polls to get results they desired no matter how frivalous.

    Matt, you need to jump on a plane and come hang out in the US for a year or two if you think 88% of the American people want to see Pres. Bush impeached.

    But, I just hope we get the chance to see a world getting what it is asking for. I mean it when I can live by either of two maxiums —

    No man is an island whole and unto himself

    or

    All life is local…

    Now that the Cold War is over, and since we have the attention span and staying power of gnats, let’s return to isolationism. I am for pulling out of Korea no matter what. I am also for getting rid of NATO. I would have no problem with no more Bosnias, Kosovos, and so on.

    Let’s retrench and untool. We don’t have the stomach for anything worthwhile anymore, and the world doesn’t want it anyway. Save some money and focus on domestic issues…

  17. comment number 17 by: Matt

    Matt, you need to jump on a plane and come hang out in the US for a year or two if you think 88% of the American people want to see Pres. Bush impeached.

    I do not think 88% support impeachment. My point was that they cannot all be anti-Bush activists. According to wikipedia, 39% of American registered voters would support impeachment for the President and Vice President.

  18. comment number 18 by: MikeRossTky

    Democrat former Senator Bob Kerry has a nice article that sheds light on this issue:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010107

    The gap between main stream US and progressive liberals is wide.

    MikeRossTky

  19. comment number 19 by: ponta

    I reserve the judgement on the legitimacy of the U.S. policy on Iraqi;I don’t think I have sufficient knowledge about it, but I have a question; why is it that the U.S. invaded Iraqi but didn’t invade North Korea?

  20. comment number 20 by: MikeRossTky

    **why is it that the U.S. invaded Iraqi but didn’t invade North Korea? **

    What threat does North Korea present to the US directly?
    If South Korea is willing to prop up this evil country, why should US actively work to take away the prop?
    What resources does North Korea have to become a threat? Does it even have enough gasoline to move all of its equipment for more than couple of days?
    You just have UN “food program”, not “oil for food program”.

    MikeRossTky

  21. comment number 21 by: ponta

    What threat does North Korea present to the US directly?

    Okay so what threat did Iraqi present to the US directly?

  22. comment number 22 by: ponta

    Well, I should be more specific;
    What the threat presented to the U.S. directly is is a topic of hot discussions. But my concern is not that. My concern is related to Japan.
    Besides the threat to the U.S. directly or indirectly , there were other causes; for instance, brutal repression of its civilian population , the alleged weapons of mass destruction that posed the threat to the international security and peace, etc, which gave other states reasons to support the aggression.
    North Korea satisfies these conditions. NK might be worse because it declared she has nuclear weapons and Iran and North Korea have agreed to step up bilateral contacts.
    I am not saying the U.S. should invade North Korea, which would be devastating
    But if the U.S is taking a compromising measures toward North Korea, as it seems to be doing now, because it does not pose direct threat to the U.S, as posed by Iraqi, regardless of the fact it is posing threat to Japan, I think the U.S is sending the wrong message to Japan.
    (This is off the topic though)

  23. comment number 23 by: crypticlife

    Web polls are awful. A recent poll by Christianity Today on atheism led to it being selected as “The only rational outlook”. In five choices, it took roughly 96% of the vote, with the other choices receiving 2% or less each.

  24. comment number 24 by: usinkorea

    Matt, my point was what #23 above said.

    An internet poll is for fun, not data.

    Since Clinton was impeached, we will hear talk of impeaching the president for the next 10-20 years – regardless of who is in the White House and what they do. That is where the US is pseudo-politically at the moment and it will take some time to get it out of our system…

    Kind of like how ever scandle since 1972 has been a Watergate…and how every reporter wants to blow something into Watergate…

    #19 – that one is easy – Iraq was doable, NK is not. It has nothing to do with threat level.

    The Soviet Union and friends were a mammoth threat to the US (and us to them), but a “Cold” war went on for 50 years, because both sides had a convincing deterent…

  25. comment number 25 by: surabaya johnny

    Mr Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury. If a simple fact like that eludes people, why should I trust their judgement with something more complicated?