This one seems to be getting passed around on the net a lot....
The only thing I can see for which W might be impeachable is abdicating the field in the vicious propaganda war which the dems are waging and which he assumes the majority of Americans will continue to ignore. That may or may not be a valid assumption, I wouldn't risk it myself.
In the case of "war crimes", the people being held in Gitmo are basically terrorists who are most definitely not covered by Geneva conventions or anything else. They are legally equivalent to spies; the normal means of dealing with enemy-nation spies is to get any information you can from them and then kill them. All nations have accepted that since biblical times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad
Quote:
The firing squad is commonly used to execute spies; the renowned World War I spy Mata Hari was so executed. It is often considered a particularly honorable method of execution, and as such is intentionally not used for war criminals, who are often hanged....
Ideally, some hog farmers' cooperative should be running Gitmo and a cage without (other) pigs in it should be the reward for useful information.
As to "lying us into a war", I simply can't imagine the amount of chutzvah it must take for the dems to make such a claim a scant six years after Kosovo. In the case of Kosovo in fact, the lie was grandiose. NY Times articles about Kosovo from the late 80s before there was any NATO/Clintonista axe to grind in the case indicate that Albanian Kosovars were and are a bunch of savages, are mainly illegal immigrants to the region, and are hated even by ordinary Albanians, and that Milosevic's lifting of the autonomy of the region in 89 which precipitated the current troubles in the region was absolutely necessary to protect the regions other ethnic groups FROM the Albanian Kosovars.
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Binder87NYT.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~sarant_2/ksm.html
Other recent European articles clearly demonstrate that nothing resembling ethnic cleansing or genecide was happening in 98 or 99:
http://www.iraqwar.org/germanreport.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/biglie.html
The basic reality of Kosovo is that it was meant to take chinagate and the Juanita Broaddrick rape allegations off of the front pages of American newspapers and journals.
All of that is aside from the fact that the claim (of present "war-crimes") has zero merit of course.
We still hear this claim that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is aside from the point that both our CIA and British intelligence indicated that there were prior to the spring of 03, and even after democrats started accusing the US military and the Bush administration of allowing hoodlums to "loot" 400 tons of the kinds of high explosives used in implosion bombs. In real life of course, nobody "loots" 400 tons of anything; that stuff got hauled off to Syria in 18-wheelers along with Saddam Hussein's other **** during the extra half a year which the UN, Jake Shellac, Hans Blix and everybody else on the take for oil4food money provided Hussein with prior to the operation. Oil4food money, of course, was meant to feed hungry children, and not build palaces and grad schools for terrorism replete with mockup airliners.
Now, again aside from all of that, there is overwhelming evidence connecting Saddam Hussein with the anthrax attacks which followed 9-11 including poisoning the US senate office building with anthrax.
Moreover, it does not take hundreds of tons of that stuff to create havoc. The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.
The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.
The first case of anthrax after 9-11 (Bob Stevens) showed up within miles of where several hijackers stayed JUST BEFORE 9/11, a very unlikely coincidence considering that they could have stayed anywhere in the country.
The last previous case of anthrax in a human in the United States prior to 9-11 had been about 30 years prior to that.
There are other coincidences. For instance, the wife of the editor of the sun (where Stevens worked) also had contact with the hijackers in that she rented them the place they stayed.
Atta and the hijackers flew planes out of an airport in the vicinity and asked about crop dusters on more than one occasion. Indeed, Atta sought a loan to try and modify a crop duster.
Atta and several of the hijackers in this group also sought medical aid just prior to 9/11 for skin lesions that the doctors who saw them now say looked like anthrax lesions.
Basically, you either believe in the laws of probability or you don't. Anybody claiming that all these things were coincidences is either totally in denial or does not believe in modern mathematics and probability theory.
While the anthrax in question originally came from a US strain, it isn't too surprising that Iraq might have that strain since that strain was mailed to laboratories around the world years earlier.
Nonetheless, it was highly sophisticated, and went through envelope paper as if it weren't even there; many thought it to be not only beyond the capabilities of Hussein but of anybody else on the planet as well including us. Nonetheless, later information showed Husseins programs to be capable of such feats:
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html
Basically, the anthrax attack which followed 9/11 had Saddam Hussein's fingerprints all over it. It was particalized so finely it went right through envelop paper and yet was not weaponized (not hardened against antibiotics). It was basically a warning, saying as much as:
"Hey, fools, some of my friends just knocked your two towers down and if you try to do anything about it, this is what could happen. F*** you, and have a nice day!!"
There is no way an American who had had anything to do with that would not be behind bars by now. In fact the one American they originally suspected told investigators that if he'd had anything to do with that stuff, he would either have anthrax or have the antibodies from the preventive medicine in his blood and offered to take a blood test on the spot. That of course was unanswerable.
In fact The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:
http://thexreport.com/atta_and_al-ani_photo_and_analysis.htm
The basic American notion of a presumption of innocence is not meaningful or useful in cases like that of Saddam Hussein. Even the Japanese had the decency to have their own markings on their aircraft at Pearl Harbor; Nobody had to guess who did it. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly. At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles. Likewise, in the case of Saddam Hussein, the reasonable assumption is that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent and, obviously, that did not happen.
At the time, the US military was in such disarray from the eight years of the Clinton regime that there was nothing we could do about it. Even such basic items as machinegun barrels, which we should have warehouses full of, were simply not there. Nonetheless, nobody should think they would get away with such a thing and, apparently, Hussein and his baathists didn't.
Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" documents some of this:
Quote:
'Cheney?s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, quickly questions the wisdom of mentioning state sponsorship. Tenet, sensitive to the politics of Capitol Hill and the news media, terminates any discussion of state sponsorship
with the clear statement:
Quote:"I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor."
'Vice President Cheney further drives the point home:
Quote:
"It's good that we don't, because we're not ready to do anything about it."
Even simple things like body armor, ammunition, and machinegun barrels which we should have warehouses full of simply weren't there, i.e. they'd been sold off at 40 cents on the dollar for DNC money. A friend of mine called up one of the nation's premier barrel makers about a barrel for a target rifle in early 02 and was told that they were working
24/7 making machinegun barrels and didn't have time for any sort of civilian firearm business.
Now, a president in W's position taking over after the 8 years of total mismanagement and abuse of this perverted Clinton administration had about two choices after 9/11: He could do what he actually did, or he could do what many probably have done which would be to nuke Mecca, Medina, Rihyad, Falluja, and every other den of slammite terrorism on the planet and ban the practice of I-slam throughout the world.
A reasonable person would probably like to at least try what W. has first.
The basic reality appears to me to be that the leaders of the de-moker-rat party and many on the left including people like Garrison (slow is cool) Keiler, have become deranged and are living in dream worlds.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace