Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/documents/constitution.html

For further reading of the separation of powers

and this

I agree, Thomas, but I am simply pointing out the pitfalls of judging Bush too harshly. I do not personally put him anywhere near the par of an Abraham Lincoln, however, I do give him credit for consistency and for commitment, something which many of his political opponents severely lack. The primary factor that separates Bush from popularity right now is not the rightness or wrongness of his policy, but the apparent degree of success of his policy, as judged today in the popular media. Future events could drastically change that assessment.

Lincoln went through many dark days during the Civil War, and there were times when everything seemed to be turning against him, and he was called every name in the book and judged as a literal failure by many. However, history proved him not only right, but a man of greatness. I think Bush's political opponents are trampling on him now in such a gleeful manner, not because of being astute themselves, but because they see their partisan political goals being furthered.

Many of those same people, including Hillary Clinton, backed the war until she saw her political fortunes were better off by reversing positions. After all, Bush has not gotten us into the Iraq situation in a political vacuum. It is sad that this needs to be pointed out continuously. Congress was overwhelmingly behind him, but many of them are the ones now claiming no responsibility and going political. That tells me alot about their leadership abilities, including Hillary's ability as a leader, and it isn't the kind that I would ever vote for.

"This here's an arrow, Mr President, and this is the pointy end."

I have believed for some time that Mrs Clinton's candidacy was bound to fail for that reason.

O'Bama, now- surely Sen Kennedy could work with a man who has a name like that?

Congress was behind the president, because they were fed a bunch of BS in lead up to the war. Nobody in their right mind would question the president's ethics and honesty, but no longer. Bush changed all that. Trust has been lost for all future presidents.

"The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."
-- George Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati.

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."


LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."


LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."
FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.


LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.
FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.


LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.


LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?


LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.


LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.


LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.
FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.


LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

EXCERPTED - ENTIRE ARTICLE LINKED

An Aussie stands up for America. . . .

Anti-Americanism cannot be explained simply by US policy stances or as anti-imperialism either. The US was hated during its isolationist periods and under its pacifist presidents. Under Bill Clinton, the US was a hyperpower according to French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine. (Clinton is now lionised by European elites as a effete kind of non-American). The hapless Jimmy Carter, so cautious of bloodshed that 52 hostages were held captive in the US embassy in Tehran for 444 days, was equally despised. Should he become president, even Barack Obama will also incur the anti-American wrath.

And, of course, US policy is not always right. Indeed, big countries make big mistakes. Pick a decade and you'll find a major stuff-up by American political leaders, from the passing of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act by US Congress in 1930 that led to worldwide protectionism, to the CIA overthrowing the government of Iran in 1953 which unleashed anti-American sentiment across the Middle East.

But the distinguishing features of anti-Americanism are its intellectual dishonesty and irrationality. US malevolence is assumed, not proven.

So the Islamic world will complain the US is anti-Muslim while overlooking Bosnia. Europeans regularly overlook the fact that American power, resolve and, yes, idealism, delivered them from both Nazism and communism. Nor, when they nip down to the corner store for some foie gras in their BMWs or Citroens, do they remember the contribution the Marshall Plan made to their postwar prosperity.

While Russian President Vladimir Putin was railing against US power at an international security conference in Munich on Saturday, a respectable case can be made that, as hegemonies go, the US is the most benevolent history has ever seen. Not perfect by any means, but certainly deserving of better treatment than the acid reflux and bile of Western elites. America is big, rich and makes mistakes. But for the past 50 years at least, it has been the ultimate guarantor of the Western way
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21221896-32522,00.html

cicerone, how many times have you pasted the same stuff? To remind you for the zillionth time, the case against Iraq and Hussein was being put out by Clinton, the CIA, other Democrat politicians, and intelligence services of other countries before Bush even took office. For you guys to spin this into Bush pulled this out of his hat all by himself, and foisted this war onto everybody, including the intelligence, has to be one of the biggest media spin programs ever foisted on us. Frankly, I am tired of hearing it, cicerone. Go paste your talking points somewhere else.

It's not spin; Bush started this illegal war on false intel. Clinton was just another citizen without any power; just his opinion.

Just curious, how come a war during a Republican presidency is "illegal" and a war during a Democrat presidency is not illegal? What is this "illegal" jargon anyway? It means nothing.

You keep calling this an "illegal" war.

Tell all of us,what competent legal authority,with the authority to rule on how the US conducts its affairs,has ruled this to be an "illegal" war?

When was that ruling made?
Can you provide a link to that ruling?

I will make this simpler for you...what court in the US ruled the war illegal?

Iraq war illegal, says Annan


The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

invasion was illegal


Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian


International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

Global Policy Forum.

International Law Aspects of the Iraq War
and Occupation
This section examines the legality of the 2003 US-UK war on Iraq. Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would "not be in conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their responsibilities as an occupying power. The section also looks at wartime violations on the Iraqi side.

You didn't answer MM's question, cicerone. He asked what U.S. court has ruled the war illegal?

okie is so dumb, I'm not sure why I bother, but mm wrote: Tell all of us,what competent legal authority,with the authority to rule on how the US conducts its affairs,has ruled this to be an "illegal" war?

The UN.

http://www.stophernow.com/site/PageServer?pagename=hillary_show_ep1

You still haven't answered the questions posed by MM and okie, c. i. - the issue at discussion is not opinion, as you have provided, but rather the issue at discussion is applicable legal finding/and or ruling, which you have not provided.

UN Charter Article 51 provides: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs…." Article 39 provides: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." The United Nations Charter is a binding international treaty to which the United States is a party.

Interesting, at least to me, is that on this day in 1898 the USS Maine sunk in Havana Harbor apparently from an explosion of one of the ammunition magazines. But it was all too easy to blame the Spanish occupiers of Cuba, wild stories with screaming headlines -- Spanish Cannibalism, Inhuman Torture, Amazon Warriors Fight For Rebels -- flooded the newsstands. Newspapers sent hundreds of reporters, artists, and photographers south to recount Spanish atrocities. The correspondents, including such notables as author Stephen Crane and artist Frederick Remington, found little to report on when they arrived.

"There is no war," Remington wrote to his boss. "Request to be recalled." in the 1890s Remington's boss, William Randolph Hearst, sent a cable in reply: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." Hearst was true to his word. For weeks after the Maine disaster, the Journal devoted more than eight pages a day to the story. Not to be outdone, other papers followed Hearst's lead. Hundreds of editorials demanded that the Maine and American honor be avenged. Many Americans agreed. Soon a rallying cry could be heard everywhere -- in the papers, on the streets, and in the halls of Congress: "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain."
The Spanish-American war was born out of falsified "intelligence," we've come a long way baby, the gulf of Tonkin comes to mind as well.
When the US of A has an agenda we don't allow reality to cloud our vision.