Think of it: Bush, as President of the United States, knowingly ordered such violations and as a result some one million civilians are dead [See: Estimated Iraqi death due to US invasion nears one million] One million Iraqi civilians fall victim to state sponsored mass murder. Can we now put to rest a pernicious, evil GOP lie? That is, that Iraqis have been liberated!
Aggravating this crime against humanity is the fact that Bush defrauded the American people to do it. By any definition, that amounts to a betrayal of the sovereign --high treason! Of course, Bush is to be held responsible for these heinous crimes against the US, Iraq and humanity. That Bush invaded a sovereign nation in order to control the price of oil aggravates his crime.
I hold the GOP equally responsible. The GOP leadership must surely have known what fate awaited the innocent civilians of Iraq. I accuse the GOP of conspiring with the Bush gang of war criminals to invade a sovereign nation so that the robber barons of big oil might be enriched with higher prices for oil. [See: Grand Theft Country: How George W. Bush Looted Iraq]
It was George W. Bush who established the "liberation of Iraq" as the standard by which victory in Iraq may be judged. By that standard, Bush lost. It's also clear that by the definition found in the British Terrorism Act of 2000, the United States has waged a campaign of state-sponsored "terrorism" against the people of Iraq. Bush is, therefore, the world's number one terrorist and, as the French might say: Les Etats-Unis sont le plus grand terroriste au monde! At the same time, GOP policies make terrorism worse. When I dared to publicize FBI stats indicating that terrorism is always worse under GOP regimes, I was pounced on by the "new right" Heritage Foundation. I was right. Heritage was wrong! [ See The Heritage Foundation Picks a Fight with the Cowboy ]
On the other hand, if Bush should succeed, however by chance, in actually bringing "democracy" to any nation thus far bombed and invaded, then we should consider emigrating there. Democracy is all but dead in America! Hypocrisy is the GOP modus operandi.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006, SCOTUS ruled that the Bush administration's policy of unilaterally abrogating our legal commitment to the Geneva Conventions was illegal. Georgetown law professor Neal Katyal argued the case and prevailed. The ruling resoundingly affirms the common sense interpretation of Geneva: the use of military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees is a violation of US and international laws. So called "detainees" are entitled to protections guaranteed them in the Geneva Conventions. I am appalled that the issue even came up. But for Bush's psychotic and psycho-religious visions of conquest for God and big oil, it was a settled issue. No one but Bush, neocons, and the robber barons of big oil had a problem with it.
Bush partisans responded, asking Congress to pass legislation denying prisoners' the right to sue for protections recognized under Geneva, our own treaty obligations, and US Codes. Congress drafted legislation allowing the consideration of intelligence-gathering needs during interrogations, in place of an absolute human rights standard. This all appears to have been a sop to a ruthless, radical administration.
At stake is not just a principle but principle itself in these unprincipled times. If we buy into Bush's every rationale, the source of our rights is denied by government. This has a Gonzales/Ashcroft stench to it. It is typical of ideological thinking to work backward from outcomes to whatever premise will support them. It is my conviction that our "rights", even as US citizens, are ours not because they were given us by an otherwise benign or "Jeffersonian" government but because those rights belong to all of humanity. They are our rights individually and collectively because no individual, no government, no corporation may deny them. Individuals --not collective abstractions --are sovereign.
The Congress responded by formatting amendments to the War Crimes Act --amendments spelling out serious crimes and omitting others altogether. Typically, US officials would describe those as "less serious". Two acts -- rape and sexual abuse --were however, considered to be prosecutable. I am still wondering where that leaves Bush with regard to Abu Ghraib and the pattern of widespread tortures and other outrages to humanity that most certainly were endemic throughout the US gulag archipelago from Guantanamo to Eastern Europe. That I am even writing about these Soviet/Nazi style crimes against humanity in connection with the policies of the "President" of the United States is beyond mere indignation. It is beyond appalling, beyond outrage!
The old 911 magic may be gone forever. It was in those days, as you may recall, that Bush boasted: "Lucky me! I just won the trifecta". 911 propelled Bush to the heights of public approval amid promises that he would smoke out Bin Laden and bring him to justice. He would treat the nations who nurture terrorism as terrorists themselves. In fact, he's done none of those things. Given the fraudulent nature of his war against Iraq, it's a good thing that he has failed. A Bush success is too terrible to contemplate. [See: the FBI has recently stated that there was never hard evidence that Bin Laden had anything to do with the events of 911 anyway; Google search: NO HARD EVIDENCE] We should also add that there is also no hard evidence whatsoever in support of Bush's official conspiracy theories of 911.
That Bush has failed miserably in Iraq is now recognized by almost everyone, including most notably former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Iraq's former interim Prime Minister Allawi.
Events have shattered Bush's every ex post facto rationalization for war, most tragically, the liberation of Iraq.
"Our quarrel was not with you, the people of Iraq, but rather with your leadership, and especially with Saddam Hussein."Hollow words from a failed, would be despot who waged war against a civilian population.
—George W. Bush
It would take a US commitment of half a million troops to make a significant difference in fighting the Iraqi insurgency. But we are not in a position to do this ...And what would be the nature of that "difference"? At this point, there is no victory by any yardstick. When an entire population, an entire region is enraged, does the despot-in-chief envision murdering everyone who dares resist an illegitimate occupation? Empty rhetoric about winning is, at this point, cruel, hollow, stupid.
That we have failed to liberate Iraq means absolutely nothing to Bush for whom words mean nothing. "Liberate", for Bush, is just a word used to make his speeches sound less threatening. "Liberation" means nothing when we have imposed upon a civilian population shock and awe, the horrors of Abu Ghraib and even more recent atrocities.
The long suffering Iraqis traded one tyrant for a worse one. The ordinary Iraqi is worse off. He could not be blamed if "he" were nostalgic for Saddam. The Iraqi on the street is justified in asking what difference does it make to me whether I am tortured by Saddam or by Bush?
‘Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause,’By that definition, George W. Bush is the world's number one terrorist. He has made of the US a nation that harbors and nurtures terrorists, that is, anyone who has materially supported him. Bush continues to wage a terrorist campaign against the people of Iraq and we are not safer for his having done so.
We have only Bush's assertions that al Qaeda now operates out of Iraq. Bush should choose his lies carefully. If this is true, it means that he has failed the very raison d'etre for waging war. Certainly, al Qaeda had no "base of operation" in Iraq prior to the US attack and invasion. The public record is contrary to every Bush assertion to wit: there is no evidence that Saddam and Bin Laden were ever friendly. They were most certainly awowed enemies. Bin Laden (if what is said about him is true) represents radical, theocratic Islam. Saddam, on the other hand, was head of a "secular" state. There is credible evidence that Saddam had been supported by the CIA. He was "our" man in the Middle East. As the transcript of Ambassador April Glaspie's Saddam interview indicates, the US fell out of love with Saddam when he insisted on lowering the price of oil.
Why do we continue to make the same mistakes? You would call a doctor an idiot if he told you to keep on doing whatever it is that's making you sick. Yet that is the GOP modus operandi. The American people have at least this much in common with the hard pressed people of Baghdad, that is, they are sick and tired of Bush, his every stupid statement, his tragic criminal war, his utter nonsense about fighting "terrorism".
It's beginning to look like the American people may finally have had a bellyful of elected officials who do little more than shill for lobbyists, ignore the interests of America's citizens and perpetuate rather than solve the problems facing this nation.Bring it on! The elections that is. Dobbs points out that there are some 469 lame ducks in Congress. If the people have truly had a "belly full", they will put the corporate shills out on the streets where they belong. Pollwise and morally, Bush is lower than a snake's belly. But beneath the scales, there may be a silver lining, an opportunity. Should an enraged populace defy the pundits, the shockwaves could rock the establishment, send a shiver through corporate boardrooms, and set the hounds upon the Fox!
Lou Dobbs, Lame ducks in a row
Some food for thought:
What if the various "blue" municipalities and states, unite, to refuse to enforce ALL federal criminal statutes? Updates:
“Shall the City of Santa Barbara adopt an ordinance mandating that the Santa Barbara Police give marijuana laws the lowest law enforcement priority possible?”A California judge upholding this citizen-supported and voter approved initiative wrote:
“Santa Barbara is free to decline to enforce federal criminal statutes. It is up to the federal government to enforce its laws. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from impressing ‘into its service — and at no cost to itself — the police officers of the 50 States.’”
And now for something completely different:
Today's Washington Post reports that Attorney general Alberto Gonzales was given a report detailing FBI abuses of power six days before testifying to Congress where he sought to renew the Patriot Act. In front of the Senate Intelligence Committee he claimed he knew of no wrongdoing or abuse of power, and that the Patriot Act was free of problems, despite the reports of numerous violations of the law and FBI protocol.
The report detailed acts of unauthorized surveillance, improper searches, and other procedural and legal breaches of civil rights and privacy laws. Gonzales was also briefed on the abuse of the anti-terror tool known as the national security letter as early as 2005, well before the Justice Department's inspector general made these violations public.
Nonetheless, when the stinging IG report was issued, Gonzales reacted with surprise in public saying, "I was upset when I learned this, as was Director Mueller. To say that I am concerned about what has been revealed in this report would be an enormous understatement."
Officials and the Justice department claim that Gonzales' statements in public and before Congress were "in the context" of the reports issued by the inspector general.
Directly accusing the Bush administration of having something to hide, Leahy took to the Senate floor and said that his committee's efforts at Congressional oversight have been met with "Nixonian stonewalling that reveals this White House’s disdain for our system of checks and balances."
"This is more stonewalling from a White House that believes it can unilaterally control the other co-equal branches of government," said Leahy. "It raises the question: What is the White House trying to hide by refusing to turn over evidence?"
The Judiciary Committee chairman also pointed out that previous statements made by the White House indicated that the firing of U.S. attorneys was handled solely by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department and that answers for Congress on the issue had to come from Gonzales and his staff -- only to now claim that the investigation should be stymied because of presidential privilege.
Linda Ronstadt - Cancion Mixteca
- Is Baghdad Burning?
- Impeaching Bush, State by State
- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, June 29th, 2006: Victory!
- The House of Cards Collapsed in 1929
- Carl Jung - Matter of Heart
- Plain White Ts - Hey There Delilah
- The Gurdjieff Movements
- Diabolské Husle (Slovakia) - Gypsy Passion
The Existentialist Cowboy
Why Conservatives Hate America
GOP Crime Syndicate
Spread the word: