strombo vs. lapham

the hour recently showcased an interview with lewis h. lapham, editor of harper's magazine. now i have been impressed with the caliber of interviews george stroumboulopoulus has been able to churn out over the years, but recently, the interviews haven't been up to snuff. (eg: the interview with the killers was just plain bad. but this may not be necessarily a reflection on george but more on the fact that a band like the killers has absolutely nothing to say beyond pimping their own music.) this past monday, however, he managed to snag lewis lapham, which i thought was a real coup d' etat. lapham is a smart man that has been a vocal opponent of the iraq war and the bush administration. this is a man unafraid to ask the tough questions, to speak out when necessary. he's speaking from a country whose freedoms are being whittled away every day, which makes his questions, his speaking out, more important now than ever.

lapham makes the case for the impeachment of george w. bush. he makes the case that the iraq war could be considered a criminal charge. that even if impeachment doesn't happen, the questions should be brought forward and an attempt has to be made. (if clinton could get impeached for lying about sex with monica, surely bush can be impeached for lying about the war and general incompetence.)

an exerpt of lapham's essay for impeachment was published in harper's last march and you can read it by clicking here. the coming november mid-term elections will, in a sense, be a referendum on george w. bush's time in office. as lapham says in the interview, the mid-term elections can be a way for the american people to show that they've had enough with the lying, stealing and general abuse of power. the republicans have been in power way too long. it's time to throw the bums out.

here is the strombo interview. lapham clearly has a lot to say. watch, and bathe in the wisdom that is lapham.

and just for laughs, here's the david letterman / bill o'reilly interview that strombo aludes to in the lapham interview. o'reilly, who keeps lecturing letterman on how complicated the world is, ends up simplifying the issues himself by asking the stupid question, "do you want the united states to win in iraq?" these are the single-answer, caveman questions that people like o'reilly love to pose to anyone who disagrees with their world viewpoint. by asking this, by taking such a complicated issue and simplifying it into a yes or no question is a trap. the truth is, as lepham points out, there is no winning in iraq. whether you want america to win or not is besides the point.