Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush deserves to be impeached

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush deserves to be impeached

    July 20, 2003
    Bush deserves to be impeached
    By ERIC MARGOLIS

    "Worse than a crime, it was a blunder," was how the cynical Talleyrand famously described Napoleon's murder of the Duke d'Enghien.

    The same may be said of President George Bush's attempts to murder the leader of a sovereign nation, Saddam Hussein, and his foolhardy eagerness to invade Iraq.

    Thanks to Bush's blundering, nearly 50% of U.S. Army combat units are now stuck in a spreading guerrilla war in Iraq , costing $4 billion US monthly, that is becoming the biggest, most expensive, and bloodiest foreign mess since Vietnam. This when the U.S. is threatening military action against North Korea.

    As the furor in Washington grows over Bush's admission of now-discredited claims about Iraqi uranium imports from Africa in his keynote state of the union address, administration officials are viciously blaming one another.

    George Tenet, the CIA's meek director, became the fall guy for the uranium fiasco, though he repeatedly warned the White House its claims were unsubstantiated.

    Blame rightly belongs to Bush himself, and to his woefully inadequate national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Either they knew the uranium story was false, or they were unfit for high office.

    For one thing, uranium ore is no more threatening than cake mix.

    To weaponize it, ore must be laboriously transformed into uranium hexafluoride gas, then separated and enriched in huge, highly visible plants, equipped with "cascades" of thousands of high-speed centrifuges.

    The U.S. knew there were no such nuclear plants in Iraq. French intelligence warned it the Niger story was bogus.

    Nor had Iraq any means of delivering nuclear or biowarfare weapons. In short, Iraq had zero offensive capability, and posed zero threat.

    At the time, Bush's critics, including this column, dismissed as hogwash his claims Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the U.S.

    We were denounced as "unpatriotic" and "friends of Saddam" in the pro-war press.

    Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who challenged White House lies, was vilified and smeared with loathsome personal attacks by the neo-con U.S. media.

    The Niger uranium story may have come from Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

    Three days before the invasion of Iraq, Cheney actually claimed Iraq "has reconstituted nuclear weapons."

    As the Niger uranium scandal grows, it is increasingly clear the White House's campaign to drive Americans into an unjustified, unnecessary war had nothing to do with Iraq's alleged weapons, nor its internal repression.

    Whipping boy

    Bush's crusade against Iraq was designed to assuage Americans' fury and fear over 9/11 by making Saddam Hussein a whipping boy for the attack in which he had no part.

    The jolly little wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were also designed to make Americans forget the Bush White House had been caught with its pants down by 9/11, and was asleep at the switch in the Enron financial disaster.

    Who now remembers that Attorney General John Ashcroft actually cut spending on anti-terrorism before 9/11, or that Washington was giving millions to the Taliban until four months before 9/11?

    How better to get Americans to support a war than by insinuating, as did Bush, that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, and claiming Saddam was about to attack the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction?

    A pre-emptive attack on Iraq was urgent to save America, insisted Bush.

    A weak-kneed Congress and credulous public went along with White House warmongering, while the spineless UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, and UN arms inspector Hans Blix wriggled like jellyfish.

    Most Democrats, including some presidential candidates, joined Bush's lynch mob.

    It was not just the Niger canard.

    A torrent of lies poured from the administration, all aimed at justifying a war of aggression, thwarting the UN Security Council, ending UN inspections in Iraq and grabbing Iraq's oil riches.

    Virtually all administration claims about Iraq's weapons had been disproved by UN inspectors before Bush went to war.

    Exposed as fakery are the "drones of death;" aluminum tubes for centrifuges; chemical munitions bunkers; mobile germ labs; hidden Scuds; links to al-Qaida and "poison camps;" Saddam's smallpox; Saddam's secret nuclear program.

    And the biggest canard of all: Bush's absurd claims there was "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," and that it "threatened all mankind."

    Thanks to the shameful complicity of the U.S. media, which amplified White House propaganda, Americans were led to believe Iraq attacked the U.S. on 9/11, and was in league with al-Qaida.

    Bush's faux war on terrorism was redirected, by clever White House spin, into a hugely popular campaign against Iraq.

    The failure to kill terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was covered up by the rush to kill Saddam.

    The litany of lies produced by the White House and its neo-con allies would be farcical were it not for the deaths of so many Americans and Iraqis.

    Of course, all politicians lie.

    But lying to get one's country into an unnecessary war is an outrage, and ought to be an impeachable offence.
    “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…” -1984 about the Big Lie

  • #2
    Re: Bush deserves to be impeached

    Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti

    Of course, all politicians lie.

    But lying to get one's country into an unnecessary war is an outrage, and ought to be an impeachable offence.
    I can name one that was impeached for lying about an indelicacy with a cigar.
    And we are here as on a darkling plain
    Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
    Where ignorant armies clash by night.


    Matthew Arnold

    Comment


    • #3
      Bad Politics

      The Democrats would be hanging themselves for 2004 if they try to impeach Bush for fudging some intelligence data. Remember, they are trying to become the majority party of the United States, not the European Union. If the war is going bad a year from now Bush won't survive the election so the impeachment would end up being a waste of time. Better to focus on a $500 billion dollar deficit and poor economy.

      This reminds me of the time a few months ago where they tried to pin Bush for wasting taxpayer money by making the landing on the aircraft carrier. Of course every day they show pictures of the landing Bush's popularity goes up one percentage point! The Democrats really need some political direction.

      Maybe if the Democrats learn about politics and start offering their own message there will be a legitimate two party system again.
      Last edited by Chuck?; 20 Jul 03, 14:02.
      "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

      Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

      Comment


      • #4
        --
        Won't happen. They've been hijacked by the 'activist' left since Clinton left and even he had a hard time holding them back.

        Commentators such as Caddell, Cramer and even Matthews have said that the Dems are headed way too far to the left and as always they'll butcher each other in the primaries where the interest groups will force a true leftie to emerge to face a more centrist Bush.

        There's something else, and it's the most important factor. Americans seem to like the guy. Only men I see to challenge Bush on that front is Kerrey of Biden but both look to be a little to 'un Doney-like' for the San Francisco Dems who are literally ruining their own party.
        "Thus, a prince should have no other object, nor any other thought, nor take anything else as his art but that of war and its orders and discipline; for that is the only art which is of concern to one who commands."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bad Politics

          Originally posted by Chuck
          The Democrats would be hanging themselves for 2004 if they try to impeach Bush for fudging some intelligence data. Remember, they are trying to become the majority party of the United States, not the European Union. If the war is going bad a year from now Bush won't survive the election so the impeachment would end up being a waste of time. Better to focus on a $500 billion dollar deficit and poor economy.

          This reminds me of the time a few months ago where they tried to pin Bush for wasting taxpayer money by making the landing on the aircraft carrier. Of course every day they show pictures of the landing Bush's popularity goes up one percentage point! The Democrats really need some political direction.

          Maybe if the Democrats learn about politics and start offering their own message there will be a legitimate two party system again.
          I agree that the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly. Some seem to realize that fact, but so far they aren't having much luck convincing the Frothing Mad wing of the party about the need to change thier approach.

          From thursdays best of the web. The original includes numerous links attributing internal quotes.
          http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003757

          BY JAMES TARANTO
          Thursday, July 17, 2003 3:39 p.m. EDT

          Voices of Sanity
          Amid the current tomfoolery about claims that President Bush "lied" about Iraq, a few lonely commentators on the left are realizing that those on their side are doing themselves terrible damage by their unjustified attacks on the president. Here's Brett Sokol in Miami's "alternative" New Times newspaper:

          One can be troubled by the apparent exaggeration of Iraqi intelligence reports without dismissing Hussein as a threat altogether. As Christopher Hitchens wrote recently in Slate: "To believe that the Saddam regime had nothing to hide is to believe that he threw out the U.N. inspectors in 1998 and then said to himself: 'Great. Now I can get on with my dream of unilaterally disarming Iraq!' Who can be such a fool as to believe any such thing?"

          Who? Unfortunately a lot of Democrats. In fact it's getting harder to tell the party's principled liberals from the more delusional figures on the Left. Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel breathlessly equates antiwar "dissidents" marching in New York with Iranian students risking their lives as they take to the streets of Tehran protesting the ayatollahs. In Fort Lauderdale, New Times's own sister paper earnestly refers to Bush's overseas "jihad" on its cover, seemingly unable to distinguish any difference between al Qaeda's terrorist strikes on the World Trade Center and the U.S. ousting of Saddam Hussein's government.

          Given a choice between burying their heads in the sand or erring on the side of caution, most Americans in 2004 will opt for the candidate who recognizes the all-too-real threats facing us. John Ashcroft = Osama bin Laden? As Bush himself might say: "Don't be so melodramaculous."

          WashingtonPost.com's Terry Neal notices that the four Democratic presidential candidates who voted for the war are tying themselves in knots trying to reconcile their votes with the imperative to oppose the Bush administration. An example is John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam:

          Asked if he was still comfortable with his vote authorizing the president to use force, Kerry did not hesitate.

          "I have no question about the decision I made," he said. "Even Hans Blix said they weren't in compliance."

          Then there was Kerry again on CNN Wednesday morning, criticizing not only the administration's post-war planning, but also raising questions about the administration's handling of intelligence, particularly the claim that Hussein was seeking the material for nuclear weapons in Africa.

          When asked by Soledad O'Brien if he were "backtracking to some degree" now, Kerry responded: "It's not just the 16 words, it's all of our intelligence. I mean, we were told they had weapons that could be deployed within 45 minutes. We were told they had unmanned vehicles that had the ability to deliver. I mean, there are a series of things here. Colin Powell came to the Foreign Relations Committee and told us, in answer to one of my questions, the only reason to go to war were weapons of mass destruction. So I voted to give the president the power to go to the U.N. in order--and to have the threat of force--in order to hold Saddam Hussein accountable."

          So now Kerry is saying his vote was based on faulty intelligence from the administration while still maintaining that he has absolutely no question about the validity of his vote. But if the intelligence was faulty, doesn't that call into question a vote based on it? Not in Kerry's view.

          Ralph Peters disagrees with the president on domestic issues and thinks the Dems would do well to focus on those:

          This column does not mean to idolize the president. Indeed, many of his domestic policies give cause for serious concern, from his slight [sic] of hand on environmental issues, through his questionable respect for women's rights, to his ideologically driven, ill-timed tax cuts. But his foreign policy is courageous, effective and vital.

          The current flock of interchangeable Democratic presidential aspirants attack the president's strengths, while failing to appreciate his weaknesses. The military equivalent would be a frontal attack across an open field against dug-in machine guns and artillery.

          Instead of reciting their litany of imaginary failures overseas, can't a single Democratic presidential hopeful admit that the potential danger to the U.S. from hate-intoxicated terrorists could one day cause an even greater loss of American lives than did our Civil War?

          . . . Unless a Democratic champion emerges who is willing to abandon petty sniping in favor of genuine leadership, at home and abroad, the American people doubtless will favor President Bush in 2004.

          The problem is that "petty sniping" is exactly what the party's base voters crave. As we mentioned Tuesday, we get e-mails from a fair number of members of the Angry Left, folks who read our column apparently because it fuels their anger. (There's something for everyone at Best of the Web Today; we aim to please.) They keep asking the same question, which we paraphrase: If a president lying about oral sex is grounds for impeachment, why isn't lying about war much worse? Only they don't say "oral sex"; they always--always--use the same vulgar term for it.

          That's funny, we thought we heard it was "time to move on" back in 1998. Now, when there's a war on, these people want to talk about Bill Clinton's sex life? The problem for the Democrats is that a significant number of their voters are far more passionate about their party's enemies than their country's. As Mark Steyn puts it:

          One reason why the President . . . is all but certain to win re-election is the descent into madness of his opponents. They've let post-impeachment, post-chad-dangling bitterness unhinge them to the point where, given a choice between investigating the intelligence lapses that led to 9/11 and the intelligence lapses that led to a victorious war in Iraq, they stampede for the latter. Iraq was a brilliant campaign fought with minimal casualties, 11 September was a humiliating failure by government to fulfill its primary role of national defence. But Democrats who complained that Bush was too slow to act on doubtful intelligence re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he was too quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This is not a serious party.

          Also from Steyn, here's the pithiest single sentence describing the current political situation: "The Democrats smell blood and don't want to be told that it's their own."
          "Lord... forgive me my actions, speech and thoughts. Because, Lord, I am seriously going to kick some unrighteous ass in Your Name, Amen."
          Princess of Wands by John Ringo (Jan 2006)

          http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200601...9232.htm?blurb

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X