Arrest the President. Now.
GW Bush is a criminal. I'm not talking about his stolen elections in 2000 and 2004 either. Simply put, he is a felon--and his felony was committed in the full light of day. During the runup to the Iraq war Bush appeared before the US Congress to give his "reasons" for going to war. He was not under oath but he lied to the houses of Congress in 2002 when he claimed that Hussein and his regime possessed chemical and biological weaponry. Lying to Congress is a felonious act. This statement is not an equivocation. It is a fact.
After letting down the entire nation in 2002 and 2003, the American press has awakened from its self-imposed slumber to finally begin questioning the rationale of Bush and the chicken hawks in his administration as they rushed us all into war in Iraq. This sudden interest in the biggest governmental fraud in American history comes too late, of course, as Bush and his cronies are ensconced in the office until 2008--but later is better than never, I guess. So here we are in 2005 and the splendid little war promised to the nation by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell et al. is now dragging into its third year with no end in sight.
As a matter of fact, the once-optimistic defense secretary Rumsfeld has now stated that the war will probably last upwards of 10 years (see above link). These are the same folks that lied to the world and said that the war ended back in May 2003. And even now, the gang can't keep its stories straight--VP Dick Cheney said a month ago that the "insurgency is in its last throes", yet it seems that for once Rumsfeld might actually be telling the truth about the duration and intensity of the conflict. These wildly divergent assessments of our latest foreign misadventure point to one thing--that the Bush boys are making things up as they go along. There has been no planning--as exemplified by the body/vehicle armor fiasco--and little attention paid to the reality of Iraq's history as a nation. Once again a white Christian US administration has entered into a conflict with a seriously motivated and seriously misunderstood opponent, while assuming that their basic value system (capitalistic/oligarchic democracy) is easily exportable to a nation that has demonstrated no affinity whatsoever for the Western style of governance. Perhaps if this war had occurred in a vacuum it might be more understandable, but coming a mere 30 years after the embarrassment of Vietnam, it is inexcusable that an administration would so casually march off to war. So inexcusable, in fact, that the only remedy to this situation is impeachment.
Impeachment is supposed to be a last-ditch response to a criminal administration. The Republican party managed to ruin this procedure with their malfeasant and politically tainted impeachment of Clinton back in 1998. Now the logic in 1998 was that Clinton was a felon because he lied under oath, and as a felon was deemed worthy of impeachment. So my question is then "why not George W.?" It's all a matter of scale, I guess--Whitewater involved illegal profits in the neighborhood of $172,000, whereas Enron's bankruptcy totalled in the billions of dollars, as did the default of BCCI and the American savings and loan scandals of Bush the First--so perhaps the Clintons were guilty of not setting their sights high enough. The grander the scheme, the greater?
So logically then George W. Bush should be impeached. In 5 years' residence in the highest office in the land, he has presided over the two largest corporate bankruptcies in American history (Enron and WorldCom); he was the sitting President for the worst military attack on American soil in our history (September 11, 2001); and he baldfacedly lied to the US Congress about Iraq's capability to manufacture and deliver weapons of mass destruction to the Western Hemisphere. Additionally, he lied to the American public at large when he and his organized crew of liars attempted to connect Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 attacks. In my opinion there has never been a stronger case to impeach a sitting President in American history.
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Paul Wolfowitz should all be in jail today. Each one of these men is guilty of treason by putting the interests of fascist multinational corporations above the interest of the nation at large. They have set the course of American democracy back to the wacky days of the post-World War I era, when the press conspired with the government to demonize the emerging Socialist/Communist/Labor movement in this country. Not since then has there been such a willingness to believe the lies of the government among the populace of the US. I don't know which is more shameful in their conduct--their attempts to wrap themselves in the flag and portay themselves as world liberators, or their incessant code-worded statements of religiosity. Either way it shows that the Bush administration is willing to embrace any hypocrisy, as long as it suits their perverted interests.
After letting down the entire nation in 2002 and 2003, the American press has awakened from its self-imposed slumber to finally begin questioning the rationale of Bush and the chicken hawks in his administration as they rushed us all into war in Iraq. This sudden interest in the biggest governmental fraud in American history comes too late, of course, as Bush and his cronies are ensconced in the office until 2008--but later is better than never, I guess. So here we are in 2005 and the splendid little war promised to the nation by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell et al. is now dragging into its third year with no end in sight.
As a matter of fact, the once-optimistic defense secretary Rumsfeld has now stated that the war will probably last upwards of 10 years (see above link). These are the same folks that lied to the world and said that the war ended back in May 2003. And even now, the gang can't keep its stories straight--VP Dick Cheney said a month ago that the "insurgency is in its last throes", yet it seems that for once Rumsfeld might actually be telling the truth about the duration and intensity of the conflict. These wildly divergent assessments of our latest foreign misadventure point to one thing--that the Bush boys are making things up as they go along. There has been no planning--as exemplified by the body/vehicle armor fiasco--and little attention paid to the reality of Iraq's history as a nation. Once again a white Christian US administration has entered into a conflict with a seriously motivated and seriously misunderstood opponent, while assuming that their basic value system (capitalistic/oligarchic democracy) is easily exportable to a nation that has demonstrated no affinity whatsoever for the Western style of governance. Perhaps if this war had occurred in a vacuum it might be more understandable, but coming a mere 30 years after the embarrassment of Vietnam, it is inexcusable that an administration would so casually march off to war. So inexcusable, in fact, that the only remedy to this situation is impeachment.
Impeachment is supposed to be a last-ditch response to a criminal administration. The Republican party managed to ruin this procedure with their malfeasant and politically tainted impeachment of Clinton back in 1998. Now the logic in 1998 was that Clinton was a felon because he lied under oath, and as a felon was deemed worthy of impeachment. So my question is then "why not George W.?" It's all a matter of scale, I guess--Whitewater involved illegal profits in the neighborhood of $172,000, whereas Enron's bankruptcy totalled in the billions of dollars, as did the default of BCCI and the American savings and loan scandals of Bush the First--so perhaps the Clintons were guilty of not setting their sights high enough. The grander the scheme, the greater?
So logically then George W. Bush should be impeached. In 5 years' residence in the highest office in the land, he has presided over the two largest corporate bankruptcies in American history (Enron and WorldCom); he was the sitting President for the worst military attack on American soil in our history (September 11, 2001); and he baldfacedly lied to the US Congress about Iraq's capability to manufacture and deliver weapons of mass destruction to the Western Hemisphere. Additionally, he lied to the American public at large when he and his organized crew of liars attempted to connect Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 attacks. In my opinion there has never been a stronger case to impeach a sitting President in American history.
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Paul Wolfowitz should all be in jail today. Each one of these men is guilty of treason by putting the interests of fascist multinational corporations above the interest of the nation at large. They have set the course of American democracy back to the wacky days of the post-World War I era, when the press conspired with the government to demonize the emerging Socialist/Communist/Labor movement in this country. Not since then has there been such a willingness to believe the lies of the government among the populace of the US. I don't know which is more shameful in their conduct--their attempts to wrap themselves in the flag and portay themselves as world liberators, or their incessant code-worded statements of religiosity. Either way it shows that the Bush administration is willing to embrace any hypocrisy, as long as it suits their perverted interests.
posted by alyosha mcbain at 9:39 AM
17 Comments:
Ouch, you really are angry aren't you? Very well articulated argument. It sounds like you are a little sad that Communism didn't get the break it deserved. Blaming the president for 9/11 is a bit lame, considering he was only in office for a short time when it struck, or for blaming him for Enron or Worldcom. C'mon.
Scott--First, thanks for reading. You say it's lame to blame Bush for 9-11 and the corporate bankruptcy scandals, but I think it's entirely appropriate. Between the two Bush presidencies some awfully shady financial shenanigans have occurred--the failure of BCCI, the S&L scandal, and Enron are part of a pattern of recurring misbehavior that leaves allies of the Bush family (and, of course, the Bush family itself) with bulging pockets once the dust settles. I'm a big believer in the old Greek concept of being wary of those who consistently profit through the misfortune of others.
As far as 9-11 goes, the evidence is ample that the Bush administration ignored substantial domestic intelligence in the weeks leading up to the attack. Its behavior on the day of the attack was cowardly, and its bellicose response to pretty much anything since then in the "War on Terror" has been empty posturing designed to cover up a scheme that is designed to destabilize a sovereign nation in order to dispossess it of its massive oil supplies.
Lastly, he had been in office for nearly 8 months when the attacks happened. That should have allowed plenty of time for them to familiarize themselves with the general object of national defense. And yes, Mr. Bush makes me angry. His family are profiteers who have enriched themselves at the expense of our country and our people for nearly 100 years, dating back to Grandpa (Senator) Prescott Bush and Grandpa George Herbert Walker--fine, upstanding gentlemen who just happened to do business with Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich during World War II. These gents passed on a subsequent moral ambivalence and fondness for grand, world-dominating schemes to their progeny.
There is also evidence that the Clinton administration made some missteps, and even had a chance to take custody of Osama Bin Laden. This doesn't excuse Bush for ignoring evidence, but I think you are presuming a great deal to say that Bush should have seen through the miles of threats and security issues to pick this particular one from the morass and say, "Aha!"
You are very intelligent, there is no doubt. But how are we exactly in the process of dispossessing Iraq of it's oil? The cost of the war seems to be on us. Shouldn't we just cash in some of the oil revenues to pay for it?
I think also you give too much credence to the "like father like son" concept. I am as unlike my father as night is to day, so I don't judge people that way.
But damn, what an argument you make!
Henry Ford and Walt Disney were known Nazi sympathizers as well. Should there be some sort of multi-billion dollar successor liability judgement against these companies? I think you overstate substantially the benefits accruing to the Bush family (and their cronies) from higher oil prices and corporate bankruptcies. OPEC nations and the producers themselves (in which you can purchase publicly traded shares) stand to benefit the most from higher oil prices. Vulture investors (private equity firms, hedge funds and other asset management firms backed by primarily institutional capital) invested in the debt obligations of a troubled company divide the spoils (if there are any left) following a bankruuptcy.
As you know, Paul Wolfowitz was the author of the preemption doctrine (during Bush I) that now constitutes the Administration's foreign policy. A key difference between the incumbent and his father is that Bush Sr. rejected the policy, claiming it be far too extremist. Bush Jr. embraced the concept wholeheartedly.
Attempting to impeach Clinton for his "transgressions" was indeed a national embarrassment. But let's not give the Clinton administrations a free pass regarding the policy missteps leading up to 9/11. There is plenty of blame to be assigned. Why don't we start with Muslim extremists (who are increasingly non-naturalized European citizens)? The Saudi royal family? US foreign policy? Take your pick.
The Bush administration must be held accountable for its intelligence and policy failures (especially given the fact they've resulted in over 1,700 dead and 11,000+ wounded US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqui civilian casualties). I just wouldn't hold my breath for any impeachment hearings (although there may well be cause for them).
-Steve (too lazy to register)
Yes, bush is a very bad president.
Steve--I wanted to get back to you on this post...my main point was that GW Bush committed a felony in lying to the US Congress about the reality of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs. The recent release of the "10 Downing Street Memo" shows that the US knew they were entering into a unilateral war of aggression against a sovereign nation for personal rather than national security reasons (as payback for the alleged assassination plot against his father, George Bush the First). Logically speaking (although logic has no place in modern American politics) Bush has to be impeached--there is no precedent in US history for what he and his gang of criminals have undertaken in Iraq. Even the Spanish-American conflict (which was motivated by the American desire to begin collecting overseas colonies like all the nations of Europe) had more of a basis in actuality than the flimsy and false reasons given to the American people for engaging Iraq in a military conflict. American Presidents that use state military forces to settle personal scores are guilty of malfeasance in the highest degree, if not outright treason.
War is not something to be entered into lightly, but Bush and his cronies have approached this situation in the Middle East like a bunch of 16th-century European princes. They have placed the interests of the nation behind their own selfish interests, and have decided that erasing a stain from their family's record of service in the White House is more important than maintaining a balanced budget, educating the nation's children, etc. When given the keys to the nation's highest office, those who hold them should act in the best interests of the nation at large. To say that removing a tyrant who was as well contained as a cornered king on a chessboard was a matter of national security was one of the biggest lies ever foisted on the American people by a sitting President. For this reason George W. Bush deserves to be in handcuffs today.
You mention that Bush the First managed to reject Wolfowitz' plan for Middle Eastern hegemony as a point of differentiation between Bush pere and Bush fils. While that is true, the cloud of financial scandal that hovers over the son also hovers over the father. You contend that they have not profited to the levels I claim, but I respond to your contention by saying that holding massive amounts of political power is compensation enough.
Lastly, I don't wish for after-the-fact court judgments against the heirs of Disney and Ford--but what really burns me about the corporate sector in the US is how they literally got away with murder in the years leading up to WW II. IBM, Alcoa, Ford Motor Co., and Brown Brothers Harriman were probably just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how much business this country transacted with Hitler's murderous Reich. Yet these same organizations exist today, unfettered and unpenalized. Our coporate classes were crazy for Hitler, who also had deep admiration for the American eugenics program of the early 20th century. But I digress.
Let's assume that Bush and his Neo-Con fraternity brothers are waging an illegal war (it is certainly immoral, and I doubt it qualifies as legitimate under the Just War Theory of Thomas Aquinas). Given the certain immorality and probable illegality of the Administration's actions in Iraq the question that should spring to mind is: where the hell are the Democrats? Have you ever seen a bigger bunch of pussies in your life? They blew the 2004 presidential election by nominating an ineffectual candidate and are now nowhere to be found (in practical terms), preferring instead to wallow in self-pity and lick their wounds. The Democrats deserved to lose the election, by the way, as a consequence of sheer incompetence.
For the record, I am not a card-carrying member of any political party. In fact, I despise ideologues, who I find to be intellectually dishonest and lazy. Nothing would make me happier than to see a steel cage death match between the Fox News and Air America "talent."
-Steve
Alyosha,
See, you make sense right up until you say things like, as payback for the alleged assassination plot against his father, George Bush the First. The plan is to destablize radical Islam in the middle east by installing a working Democracy, not as petty payback for the "alleged" assasination plot. And then you say holding political power is the compensation? Sounds like a cop out.
I agree with Scott regarding his view of the motivations behind the Iraq invasion. Of course, the intent to impose democracy on a sovereign nation is no more justifiable than the motive of pure revenge (a theory which I entirely dismiss).
"Iraq possesses WMD and constitutes a threat to America. Saddam harbors terrorists. Iraq must comply with UN resolutions because the US has such respect for multilateral organizations and the UN specifically. No, wait. Scratch that. I meant that Iraqi citizens need to be freed from the tyranny of their dictator." Truly amazing. Truly idiotic. Truly frightening. But revenge? I don't think so.
By the way, Alyosha, I applaud your efforts to spark some intelligent debate. A nice change from the folks who cloak blind loyalty and ignorance in the American flag and call it patriotism.
Finally, regarding the origin of your name, who is owed a beer?
Scott--regarding the "payback" idea, I didn't come up with it OR say it. President George W. Bush said it, back in 2002.
If wielding massive political power is not a desirable form of compensation, then why has there been a parade of unqualified rich assholes like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steve Forbes, Jon Corzine, and H. Ross Perot eagerly attempting to enter into the world of American politics?
Anonymous--My point is that Bush has conducted US military business like a medieval king. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein helped erase the stain of the fuck-up that occurred in 1991 when Bush the First told Schwarzkopf to stand down and not invade Baghdad. Not only that, but Bush the Second's actions are designed to rewrite the history of the Kurdish uprising that occurred in the wake of Gulf War I...you remember that one, right? The uprising encouraged by the State Dept. and the White House that was then left twisting in the wind, at the utter mercy of Saddam's vicious regime.
Like it or not, there is nothing either you or Scott has posted that can change my mind on this subject. The Bushies are totalitarian-minded folk, and there's no better way for the totalitarians to occupy themselves than by falsifying history. There were no sound military reasons for the invasion, and even you two must admit that the 10 Downing St. Memo has provided the final proof that Bush's administration knew that they were lying when they made their claims about attempted uranium purchases and attempted biological and chemical weapons development. They are political people, and political people NEVER forget a slight, or a fight.
As far as my name goes, a certain member of the House of Lukagnini was able to decipher the cipher.
Possibly Alyosha, these people want to make a difference. Maybe, just maybe, they want to do something good for the world.
Signed,
Pollyanna
Oh, and yes, I don't exactly buy the explanation given for going into Iraq. As bad as it sounds, I understand why he would be motivated to sell us on WMD instead of just levelling and selling a long range, abstract plan -- that seems to be working by the way. He may go down for lying, if indeed he is, but he'll also go down in history as the man who stared down terrorism in defiance of world opinion.
The Bushies aren't falsifying history, they're making it.
One of the myriad problems with the Iraq plan is that the Administration is seeking to unite a historically fragmented region. The Ottomans thought they could do it, and failed, and the Brits followed with the same results. Why the hell do the Bushies think they can accomplish what has been attempted before with different results? As Einstein said, "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The foregoing is wildly oversimplified, but nonetheless historically accurate.
The military action in Afghanistan was completely justified in response to 9/11. You really want to stop Al Quaeda? Focus on Saudi Arabia (where 95%+ of the hijackers hailed from), London, Spain, Germany, France, Iran, Egypt and Indonesia as well as Iraq. "Fighting them over there" in no way precludes them from attacking us again here. Al Quaeda operatives now reportedly shave their beards, eat pork and otherwise blend in with their host/target countries' populations. DeTocqueville would probably view the Iraq experience as terribly flawed in its conception and execution. If this grand and costly experiment works in transforming Iraq into a stable democratic state, then I'll give credit where it's due. But the burgeoning strength of the insurgency and the tacit admission by US political and military leaders that all is not well do not seem to bode well.
Scott--OK, now I'm losing respect for your arguments. Bush did lie about Iraq's weapons capabilities--this is not a matter of opinion. He lied, Rumsfeld has lied, Colin Powell lied, Condi Rice lied, and Dickhead Cheney lies every time he opens his corrupt, heart-medicine encrusted lips.
As for your claim that the Bushies are "making history", I counter by saying they are inventing and falsifying history. Just another crime to toss onto their pile of criminal activities. They have no mandate--less than 30% of the total voting population voted for him in both stolen elections.
To even imply that there are any altruistic motivations behind the Bush gang's actions is naive in the extreme. Bush will go down in history as what he is--a fucking joke of a human being who was thrust into a job that was well past his capabilities to perform; he has more in common with the shit-headed monarchs of Europe in the 17th century whose capacity for enjoying luxury far exceeded their ability to grasp any of the subtleties of their political worlds. And like these royal clowns of centuries past, he will be viewed with scorn and derision by those who write history.
Lastly, if you subscribe to the watered-down Machiavellianism offered by these bumbling criminals and believe that leaders of nations are entitled to lie to the populace in order to further their policies, then I say to you that you deserve an incompetent semi-literate religious fanatic like George W. Bush as your leader. The respect I have for this country and its ideals will not allow me to accept someone who perverts the entire democratic tradition as a leader of anything.
Over 1500 soldiers have died since the Bush criminal conspiracy declared hostilities to be over in May 2003. How does that sit with you, Scott? Or does it not matter to you because the fighting and dying is being done by those less fortunate than ourselves?
Anonymous--nice Einstein quote! I too have never had a problem with the rationale behind the search for Osama Bin Laden. But the actions of the administration (not to mention the revelations of various intelligence community whistleblowers) have shown that their priority was Iraq first and foremost, regardless of the facts.
The US President has war-making powers, yes it's true. But since the end of WW II the office of the President (regardless of political affiliations) has grabbed more and more power for itself in terms of its capacity to take the nation to war. Since 1960, each President has had their special little military intervention projects (like Grenada, Bosnia-Herzegovina, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cambodia) and each of these foreign misadventures has slowly stripped the ability of the US Congress to prevent the Commander-in-Chief from unilaterally going to war. I have never been enamored with the concept of the imperial presidency, but unfortunately I am in the minority when it comes to that.
Years of acceptance of the lies and bluster that this government uses to justify its exploitation of the world around it have turned the American people into docile and powerless consumers. It's high time for Americans to recall that people invest their government with power, not the other way around.
Bush once again stating as fact that which is not: Iraq was involved in 9/11. He's like a child who keeps touching a hot stove. Or more accurately, one who keeps insisting that his imaginary friend is indeed real.
Post a Comment
<< Home