(no subject)

I read this article over the weekend (thanks to angry_biscuit for the linkage), and while I don't necessarily agree 100%, it does raise (or re-raise) an interesting point. Namely, even though everyone in the country world is aware by now that the war in Iraq was justified and prosecuted based on the fabrications and exaggerations (read: lies) of the Bush administration, why when that fact is mentioned is it not immediately followed by the notion that such actions are not only wrong but should be regarded as criminal, and punished as such? I mean, seriously? Perhaps this is an old saw, but it bears remembering that Bill Clinton was nearly impeached for lying about a consensual sexual affair, hurting no one, certainly killing no one. Bush, on the other hand, used lies and distortions and fearmongering to get us into a war which has to date cost the lives of nearly 5,000 American soldiers and untold thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children, and left who knows how many others mentally and physically scarred for life. Why isn't he regarded as a war criminal and treated as such? Meh, I know this has all been hashed over by those on the rabid left for years. It just does honestly concern me that if Bush simply leaves office and fades into history as merely a terrible President, it won't be enough. Rather than sending a message that the American people won't stand for such incompetence and dishonesty in their leadership, it will instead send the message that our leaders can do whatever they damn well please, truth and innocent lives be damned. Or maybe that's true and simply the way things are these days? I don't want to be so cynical, I really don't.

Anyway, just some rambling, apropos of nothing in particular. Busy day here at work playing catchup and preparing for the head honchos of the company to visit tomorrow, so I'd better get back to it.