Saturday, June 10, 2006

Ding Dong! Zarqawi's still dead and Bush's campaign of war crimes is still alive

The media celebration of Al Zarqawi's alleged death last week is uninformed, stupid, obscene. No one ever said Zarqawi was a boy scout. The media ignores some important facts. The "insurgency" could not target U.S. troops if they weren't there! Bin Laden —about whom this war we were told was begun —was never said to have been in Iraq, but, nevertheless, Iraq was Bush's first choice for attack. Iraq had better targets, it was said. That's the logic of the drunk who searches for his lost keys under the street light because the light is better. It's also Bush's logic.

Bin Laden is most certainly safe in the mountains of Pakistan secure in the knowledge that Bush's second statement about him is correct:
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

George W. Bush, Press Conference by the President, The James S. Brady Briefing Room, March 13, 2002, 4:00 P.M. EST

Earlier, September of 2001, Bush launched his fraudulent war on "tuhruhrr" with one of his first broken promises. Bush called upon the Afghan people to break with the Taliban and help him "...smoke [Islamic "terrorists] out; get them running so we can get them." Bush promised to "...bring them to justice".

None of that happened! Secondly, I would like to know when Bin Laden ever took over a country. When did Bin Laden call the "...shots for the Taliban"? When is the MSM ever going to challenge Bush's seemingly endless string of lies, absurdities, stupid remarks, and inanities? George W. Bush has most certainly murdered more Iraqi citizens than Al Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein together.

It's hard to believe that it was in the year 2004 that the Washington Post reported that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion.[100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq, Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A16] On January 9, 2006, Bush himself estimated Iraqi civilian deaths may be well over 180,000. By now, possibly, half a million. Deaths attributed solely to Zarqawi are not nearly so high. Moreover, Zarqawi most certainly would not be in Iraq had not Bush invaded that country to begin with. Tragically —Bush cannot be trusted to sort out the dead. He merely delivers them up and leaves to bereathed families the task of burying his victims.

Oddly, Donald Rumsfeld told the truth —however inadvertently. "It [insurgency] was more than had been predicted," Rumsfeld told CNN. He blamed the insurgency itself on "imperfect intelligence" and acknowledged that the American presence had been been "feeding" the "insurgency".

The word "insurgency" is Bush newspeak. Bush won his first propaganda battle when the MSM picked up the word and repeated it without questioning its appropriateness. It's called "framing". Insurgency does not describe a situation characterized by sectarian violence, possibly civil war. Insurgency does not describe a chaotic anarchy fed and purposefully aggravated by the very presence of U.S. troops. U.S. troops now appear to have waged a deliberate war of atrocity against the civilian population; the word "insurgency", therefore, sounds hollow, disingenuous, purposefully untruthful. Better terms to describe Iraq are "civil war" and "resistance to an aggressor".

The fact never reported by MSM is that the U.S. attack and invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation, was from the very start an illegal war of naked aggression, a capital crime under U.S. law. But, I am wasting my breath. When Bush is charged under 18 § 2441, a packed, GOP appeals court will uphold his decree that if " the President does it, it's legal!". Why didn't Hermann Goring and the hanged Nazi war criminals think of that? They might have survived to advise the GOP!

Already, the United States has unilaterally exempted U.S. troops from war crimes prosecution in the Hague. A bill entitled To protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States Government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party was introduced by Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) as an amendment to H.R. 1646, The Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2001, on May 8, 2001. It passed the House 282-137 on May 10 and introduced as S. 857 in the Senate on May 9 by Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC), Zell Miller (D-GA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John Warner (R-VA), Trent Lott (R-MS), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Frank Murkowski (R-AK).

The bill authorized Bush " use all means (including the provision of legal assistance) necessary to bring about the release of covered U.S. persons and covered allied persons held captive by or on behalf of the Court [International Criminal Court, ICC, in the Hague]. Some highlights:

The President is authorized to invade The Hague. Specifically, the bill empowers Bush to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release from captivity of U.S. or Allied personnel detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of the Court. Dutch cartoonists have depicted U.S. paratroopers dropping down on the international court; U.S. assault forces hitting Netherlands beaches like D-Day!

No U.S. governmental entity --including State or local governments and court of any U.S. jurisdiction --may cooperate with the ICC in arrests, extraditions, searches and seizures, taking of evidence, seizure of assets, or similar matters.

No classified national security information can be transferred directly or indirectly to the ICC or to countries Party to the Rome Statute.

These provisions are in addition to existing U.S. law (the 2000-2001 Foreign Relations Authorization Act) which prohibits any U.S. funds going to the ICC once it has been established unless the Senate has given its advice and consent to the Rome Treaty.

Here's some more ancient history. Forty-four members of the U.S. House of Representatives on July 19, 2001 urged Bush "... to remain engaged with the Court, and demonstrate America's commitment to the often-difficult and complicated international effort to promote justice and human rights", the Bush administration, nevertheless, rejected the ICC treaty. A letter from US envoy Ambassador Pierre-Richard Prosper to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that Washington had no intention of ratifying the treaty and considered itself “ longer bound in any way to its [the treaty's] purpose and objective.”

Clearly —this represented at the time an unprecedented rift between the United States and its European allies; American isolation has only increased since then. Over the five years or so since Bush declared the U.S. above international laws that the U.S. had, in fact, insisted upon, Bush continues to thumb his nose at the civilized world while the United States plays the roll of a rogue, out of control nation dominated by a militant, extremist, right wing junta.

Iraqis are worse off under Bush —an undeniable fact glossed over by a kool-aid addicted American media. It's time to connect the dots. The United States is building permanent bases in Iraq. The observable permanent state of turmoil and chaos in Iraq is as good a pretext as any for a continued U.S. aggression and war crime. After all, there is little chance of appealing to law and treaty when it is the "President" of the United States who thumbs his nose at them. Denial and delusion are more palatable than truth: Bush invaded Iraq in order to steal its oil for his base back home: big oil! Additional resources:

The Existentialist Cowboy
Post a Comment