top
Anti-War
Anti-War
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

THEY IMPEACH MURDERERS, DON'T THEY?

by Abraham
Bush Must Step Down

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

NEW YORK--George W. Bush told us that Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together. They weren't. He repeatedly implied that Iraq had had something to do with 9/11. It hadn't. He claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons of mass destruction. He didn't. As our allies watched in horror and disgust, Bush conned us into a one-sided war of aggression that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people, destroyed billions of dollars in Iraqi infrastructure, cost tens of billions of dollars, cost the lives of American soldiers, and transformed our international image as the world's shining beacon of freedom into that of a marauding police state. Presidents Nixon and Clinton rightly faced impeachment for comparatively trivial offenses; if we hope to restore our nation's honor, George W. Bush too must face a president's gravest political sanction.

As the Bush Administration sold Congress and the public on the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein last winter, White House flack Ari Fleischer assured the American people: "The President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense would not assert as plainly and vocally as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it." That's unambiguous rhetoric. But since allied occupation forces have failed to find WMDs, Bush is backtracking: "I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program," the C-in-C now says.

What's next? Claiming that Saddam had WMDs because, you know, you could just feel it?

A ferocious power struggle is taking place between Langley and the White House. "It's hard to tell if there was a breakdown in intelligence or a breakdown in the way intelligence was used," says Michele Flournoy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. No it's not. Career analysts at the Central and Defense Intelligence Agencies, furious at Bush for sticking them with the blame for the weapons scandal, are leaking prewar memoranda that indicate that the Administration covered up the spooks' assessments, making the case for war with a pile of lies constructed on a bedrock of oil-fueled greed.

A September 2002 DIA study said that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons," but Bush ignored the report--and told us the exact opposite. After Bush used the discovery of two alleged mobile weapons labs to claim "we found the weapons of mass destruction," CIA "dissenters" shot back that Bush had lied about their reports and that they "doubted the trailers were used to make germ agents, not[ing] that the plants lacked gear for steam sterilization, which is typically necessary for making bioweapons." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld parried: "Any indication or allegation that the intelligence was in any way politicized, of course, is just false on its face...We haven't found Saddam Hussein either, but no one's doubting that he was there." Rummy also floated the CIA-debunked tale of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

Both factions are missing the point.

Calling for a full Congressional investigation, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) of the Armed Services Committee, says: "I think that the nation's credibility is on the line, as well as Bush's." But not even the discovery of a vast WMD arsenal should save Bush now. Assuming that one accepts preemption as a legitimate cause for war--and one ought not--you must possess airtight substantiation that a nation poses an imminent and significant threat before you drop bombs on its cities. Evidence that falls short of 100 percent proof, presented in advance, doesn't pass the pre-empt test.

Bush claimed to have that proof. He said that Iraq could deploy its biological and chemical weapons with just 45 minutes notice. He painted gruesome pictures of American cities in ruins, their debris irradiated by an Iraqi "dirty bomb." It was all a bald-faced lie, and lying presidents get impeached.

George W. Bush, like Richard Nixon, "endeavor[ed] to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency." George W. Bush, like Richard Nixon, "[made] or caus[ed] to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States." (The legalese comes from the first Article of Impeachment against Nixon, passed by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974. Faced with certain impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate, Nixon resigned two weeks later.)

In the words of Bill Clinton's 1998 impeachment, George W. Bush "has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."

Nixon and Clinton escaped criminal prosecution for burglary, perjury and obstruction of justice. George W. Bush, however, stands accused as the greatest mass murderer in American history. The Lexington Institute estimates that the U.S. killed between 15,000 and 20,000 Iraqi troops during the fraudulently justified invasion of Iraq, plus 10,000 to 15,000 wounded. More than 150 U.S. soldiers were killed, plus more than 500 injured. A new Associated Press study of Iraqi civilian casualties confirms at least 3,240 deaths. Although Bush, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice denied such legal niceties to the concentration-camp inmates captured in their illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, these high-ranking Administration henchmen should be quickly turned over--after impeachment proceedings for what might properly be called Slaughtergate--to an international tribunal for prosecution of war crimes.

Anything less would be anti-American.

(Ted Rall is the author of "Gas War: The Truth Behind the American Occupation of Afghanistan," an analysis of the underreported Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline project and the real motivations behind the war on terrorism. Ordering information is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2003 TED RALL

RALL 6/10/03
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Angie
An excellent article.

Those of us world wide who marched against any attack on Iraq never believed a word Bush and friends said. I still don't.

I think it's imperative that those of us with a conscience continue to demand answers. Let's see where the blame will be placed, hmm?

At least in Britain there will be a parliamentary inquiry as to the source of the ready to attack WMD. Poor Tony Blair! What a wasted life of a politician who could have done so much and decided it was more fun to hang out with Bush instead.

The people of both countries deserve much, much better.
by c.campbell
I guess then we should have impeached Clinton for all his murders in Somalia, Yugoslavia and Iraq.
by Brian
In America it has become the norm for politicians to escape the justice they deem necessary for the rest of us lowly people. It is great to write executive orders(sounds like dictatorial powers to me) Clinton escaped,and Bush will skate.
We have been told that we are a free people so much that people actually believe it. Our political parties are mirror images of each other. If an independent decides to run, voting independent in the primaries is forbidden. I see no hope for justice in America unless money gets very tight. People are so very complacent when things are fine.
by Cough
Practically no politician ever would survive that sort of impeachment proceeding. Because politics constantly has greater good and lesser evil choices to make even if they are "morally pure".
So it is really a request for papua new guinea style anarchism.
Indeed. Instead, we went after him for getting a blow job.

What does that tell the world about us.
by vote to impeach
"Vote found at www.votetoimpeach.org
§*
by &
These are quotes by the prime minister of the Zionist state.
The zionist state is in charge of terrible piles of WMD.
A nuclear scientists who has spoken of the massive amounts of weapons found in there has been jailed for the last eighteen years without bail.


Ariel Sharon, Israels prime minister in his own words:
"I don't know something called 'international principles'."
- "I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child [that] will be born in this area."
- "The Palestinian woman and child is [sic] more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child existence refers [to the fact] that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger."
- "I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him." [here Sharon clearly displays a cruel and sadistic mind, commenting way beyond any strategical considerations]
- "With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians [in Rafah, 1956]."
- "I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."
by -_+
-"i vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child [that] will be born in this area."

- "I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him."
His use of the word "burn" reminds one of "burned offerings" or "sacrifices" as in biblical times to the spirit- baal.

It is quite revealing that Sharon would use that word in the context of a military operations.

are his casualties merely "sacrifices" or "burned offering" as par his religious obligations... food for thought?
by Scottie
If you are going to accuse him of saying that sort of thing give us a reference that we can check ourselves (I mean a reputible source that would not say it jsut to slander him) otherwise we will just assume you are "pulling a guardian" and not bothering to check if your quotes are real or just made up.
by Brian
Scottie, as I told you before, read Body of Secrets by James Bamford. It shows Israel in a bright spot light.
§S
by L
AFTER AN ENTIRE BUILDING WAS REDUCED TO RUBBLE KILLING THE RESIDENTS AND THE "INTENDED TARGET", SHARON VIEWED " AS ISRAELS GREATEST SUCCESS TO DATE"...

DO YOU REALLY WANT AN INDIVIDUAL OF THAT CALIBAR HAVING ACCESS TO WMD?
§L
by Scottie
What are you going to do about it?
by Angie
Yes, I saw that comment of his on the evening news at the time and totally was disbelieving. Not so much because of what he said (which was bad enough), but the gleeful jubilation that accompanied the words. We were horrified.

What is that war criminal doing as Prime Minister let alone in charge of WMD?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$230.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network