lookingup

Dustin LindenSmith

father | musician | writer


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
iam

on the case for impeaching Bush

aldoushuxley linked to this article recently, and I'll copy and paste the same compelling intro that he did plus the remainder of the short essay behind the cut below. This article, a secret British government memo, is mentioned in the following piece and is a also very interesting read for more background on the circumstances leading up to the war in Iraq.
A Reputation in Tatters
by Paul Craig Roberts

George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation. It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America’s reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the US. America can redeem itself only by holding Bush accountable.

As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush’s far more serious lies. Bush’s lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America’s reputation, caused one billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting.

America’s reputation is so damaged that not even our puppets can stand the heat. Anti-American riots, which have left Afghan cities and towns in flames and hospitals overflowing with casualties, have forced Bush’s Afghan puppet, "president" Hamid Karzai, to assert his independence from his US overlords. In a belated act of sovereignty, Karzai asserted authority over heavy-handed US troops whose brutal and stupid ways sparked the devastating riots. Karzai demanded control of US military activities in Afghanistan and called for the return of the Afghan detainees who are being held at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Abundant evidence now exists in the public domain to convict George W. Bush of the crime of the century. The secret British government memo (dated July 23, 2002), leaked to the Sunday Times (May 1, 2005), reports that Bush wanted "to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. . . . The [UK] Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult."

This memo is the mother of all smoking guns.

Why isn’t Bush in the dock?

Has American democracy failed at home?

Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

  • 1
omahhum May 22nd, 2005
For what it's worth, I agree. When bush went to Canada, there was some 'joking' that under Canadian law (depending on the interpretation) gw could have been arrested for war crimes.

I find that people psychologically want to be on the side of the 'winner' (gw being president). More money was spent on Clinton's 'zipper' problems than gw's clear & obvious deception of the House, Senate, and all citizens.

iamom May 22nd, 2005
More money was spent on Clinton's 'zipper' problems than gw's clear & obvious deception of the House, Senate, and all citizens.

I don't think I'd believe that assertion unless you could show me some good data behind it, man. Hasn't GW racked up the largest US debt since like 1934 or something? I seem to recall seeing a graph which depicted Clinton presiding over a record-high budget surplus which tanks hard after Bush was elected and then nosedives after the onset of his invasion of Iraq.

vyus May 22nd, 2005
i don't have data, but i do think you're confusing expenses with debt.

iamom May 22nd, 2005
Good point. I believe I'm referring to the budgetary surplus and defecit. But the basic point remains the same: hasn't GW spent more on the war against terror than the government would have spent investigating and prosecuting Clinton?

omahhum May 22nd, 2005
I meant that more money was spent investigating Clinton than was spent investigating gw's deception.

iamom May 22nd, 2005
Ooooh, now you're cookin'. I bet that's totally true!!!

  • 1
?

Log in