Editorial:
Resolve and Resolution
I have in previous articles left no doubt about my positions on matters related to the American-Iraqi War. Even in my use of that term—the "American-Iraqi War"—I make clear that this is not, as the mainstream media has convinced the public, something less. Specifically, it is not some "civil war" we happen to be caught up in. The incidence of a civil conflict currently underway in Iraq is irrelevant to the fact that the United States is at war there: we are pouring tens of thousands of troops into Iraq, we are spending eight billion dollars a month on military operations, our soldiers are getting killed and wounded there, and we are killing and wounding thousands of enemy fighters and civilians, almost all of which are Iraqis. That's a war; and because the U.S. is fully engaged, it is an American war. It is not a "conflict"; it is not a "military action"; and, most of all, it is not a "civil war"—not to us. The United States of America is at war in Iraq. All else about the fight is mere detail.
Who is fighting whom matters to our situation only to the extent that someone is fighting us. Our military personnel are getting killed and wounded, our treasury is being depleted, and our ability to project effective force, both politically and militarily, in other theatres around the world is being systematically and catastrophically compromised. Sectarian, factional, and political strife on the ground are ancillary.
The Congress of the United States handed George W. Bush the power to wage this war. That was not the first time the federal Legislature had avoided an actual declaration of war but nevertheless allowed a commander-in-chief all the power he needed to do so. To the extent that few in the Congress of 2002 had the courage to deny Mr. Bush the authority he then used so expansively, the Members of that Congress—and no less the people who elected its Members and the President—bear responsibility for what has since happened and what is to come.
George W. Bush will not be stopped with a non-binding resolution. Likely, he would not be stopped with legislative action that was genuinely substantial. It is not in the nature of his Presidency to back down or to stand down. It is not in his nature to do so.
Unless this Congress takes the steps—the long, painful, perilous steps—to impeach and then remove him and Vice President Richard V. Cheney from office, the American-Iraqi War will continue. Not only will it continue, it will escalate: we will revisit the matter of troop surges again when this current, feeble increase has proven insufficient. The neo-conservatives are fully prepared to deal with the utter failure of their use of military violence by volunteering the nation for more of it.
Again, until President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard V. Cheney are impeached by the United States House of Representative and convicted and removed from office by the United States Senate, the American-Iraqi War will not only continue, but will expand. It will use more American lives; it will expend more American money we are borrowing by the hundreds of billions of dollars from nations that are our trade, military, and ideological adversaries; and it will finally—actually, quite soon—turn out to have been the pale predicate to a war between the United States and Iran. Once that happens, the Congress will find it impossible to stop a conflagration of historic proportions from rising as an impenetrable, unbreakable tower of military engagements that will define, and ultimately eviscerate, the United States for years to come.
Make no mistake: we are preparing for war with Iran, and once we (or the Israelis) have preemptively attacked, there will be no turning back. More importantly, the ensuing war between the United States and Iran will absorb the American-Iraqi War, and in their inseparability, we shall have no further opportunity to stop the one that started it all because Iraq will prove to have been nothing more than the staging ground for a full-blown, region-spanning, "Middle East War" of the 21st Century.
That war, by the way, will be nuclear, horrific, and long. Somewhat before those features become fully evident, it will be inevitable.
To George W. Bush, that non-binding resolution being prepared by Congress is a dare, and he will take it. He is, in the terminology of political psychology, a Social Dominance-Oriented/Right-Wing Authoritarian Leader (SDO-RWAL). In plain English, he's a schoolyard bully; but contrary to the false hope that schoolyard bullies back down when finally, resolutely confronted, they do not. Instead, they become more violent, and their expressions of violence arrive swiftly, without warning, and without reserve. All standing up to a real bully does is make him or her remove vestiges of comity; what is revealed is the true nature of his or her kind in all its unrelenting ferocity.
Pass that non-binding resolution on George W. Bush, and watch what happens. Unless Congress has the guts to take its dispute with Mr. Bush far past toothless expressions of feelings, hopes, and wishes, the President will take that resolution as his justification for an escalation of the confrontation far past anything for which this Congress has shown the intestinal fortitude.
Throwing 21,500 troops at the American-Iraqi War is dumping a couple cans of gasoline onto an already out-of-control fire. Bad as that idea is, passing a non-binding resolution critical of George W. Bush will ensure that Congress finds out what really happens when weaklings think they can stand up to bullies with nothing more than stern rhetoric. Bullies don't back down, not in real life, anyway. And they like it when their victims give them an excuse to get violent. Readers who don't believe this have never had to deal with an honest-to-goodness bully, batterer, or abuser. They are predictable, and underestimating their willingness to remain bullies, batterers, and abusers is a prescription for getting hurt very badly.
So, while I have provided at the beginning of this article the link to MoveOn.org, for my own part, I convey to Members of Congress this different message:
Unless you are ready, willing, and able to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard V. Cheney, then convict and remove them from office, stop trying to curry favor with the progressive community with your non-binding resolutions. Not only will you goad this Administration to act directly in opposition to your wishes, but you will make Mr. Bush and his people turn on you and on us. Given that the best you can muster is a worthless, non-binding resolution, and given that the best we as an electorate can muster is blustering showpeople like you, it is quite evident that we are in no way prepared for the consequences of challenging this Administration. Only when the Congress can do something far more substantial than mouthing toothless protestations will we be in a position to stop what will otherwise be the inevitable course of this country into a wider, more destructive conflict spanning the Middle East.For the time being, far better it will be for the Democratic majority to pursue highly successfully public relations campaigns like its recent 100-hour flurry of legislation. That way, Mr. Bush will be able to wield his veto pen against the will of the People without having to get ugly.
The Dark Wraith has spoken.
Published 2/02/2007 12:35:00 PM
<< 42 Comments Total
there is no legitimate lawful reason to impeach bush. Pelosi already knows this. As you pointed out, the congress voted for this war. The whole world thought hussein had wmd. The thing with nations that isolate themselves as Iraq did, is that you have to make decisions based upon incomplete information. That's what happened, and the majority of America was with Bush at the time of the saddam ouster.
Going through an impeachment process would do nothing more than expose those members of congress who were in support of the war from the get-go....which is more than 50%. Furthermore, impeachment proceedings, even if enacted, would not lead to a removal of the president...it would be a complete waste of time and energy (much like Clinton's impeachment was), and would lead to no result other than stating to the world that America is not unified...this would encourage the conflict to escalate as it would be construed as a sign of weakness by the anti-american elements round the world. Rock and roll! great plan!
If you want to be productive, instead of whining about the present quagmire, try offering viable solutions......what would YOU do to fix the problem in Iraq as it stands now? What is YOUR platform to handle the situation?
Good grief.
Good grief doesn't even begin to describe it. ;-)
While the candy-ass Congress of the United States debates whether to have a "resolution", or whether to filibuster a resolution, the air and naval forces of the U.S. and probably Israel also, are preparing to turn Iran into a nuclear wasteland, which might be a bit of an overstatement, but if so, not by much.
Good afternoon, Mark, and welcome.
First, with respect to impeachment of George W. Bush, I defer to former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega, who has written forcefully on the criminal case against the President. For example, in United States v. George W. Bush et al., she actually lays out a rather chillingly realistic scenario involving a grand jury hearing evidence against Mr. Bush. Such a case before a grand jury would parallel the indictment contained in the body of articles of impeachment in the United States House of Representatives. She and other legal talent have extended that service in other venues and writings by offering the manifest outline of the case for the prosecution of the charges contained in those articles, as well as the means by which the trial in the U.S. Senate would be successful. Ms. de la Vega, by the way, is an outstanding legal mind, even more so because she not only has extensive experience in the ways of defendants, but also has the ability to clearly set forth the complexities of the prosecution of a high official in such a way that a reasonably well-educated citizen would be able to see whether or not the actual trial was proceeding in the manner most likely to be successful.
On another point concerning your dismissal of impeachment of the President and Vice President as viable, by my stern condemnation of the Congress that approved Mr. Bush's military adventure in Iraq, I am most decidedly not ipso facto diminishing the ability of a subsequent Congress to impeach him for constructing a systematically false case for the preemptive, unjustified war he prosecuted with the approval of the House and the Senate in 2002. First, even in the most extreme case where I would accuse that Congress of having conspired with the Bush Administration to engage an unlawful war, I would be malfeasant to suggest that conspiracy diminishes the individual culpability of any of the co-conspirators. Furthermore, the prosecution of one set of conspirators does not demand the prosecution of any other set of those conspirators. In fact, in many cases where a conspiracy has been established, even beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution of the most egregious of the parties necessitates blanket or at least use immunity of others. Moreover, even when some of the actions of the prosecuted conspirators are unquestionably linked to acts of law enforcement officials and/or prosecutors, themselves, no case for dismissal can be based wholly on the wrongful acts of those doing the prosecution as long as it can be established that the individuals being prosecuted would have acted unlawfully in the absence of the wrongful acts of the prosecutors, themselves. The Bush Administration could have acted without the advice and consent of the Congress; and I can make that statement by pointing to the present situation wherein a subsequent Congress is resistant to providing consent, yet the commander-in-chief is proceeding with plans not only to escalate the war in Iraq, but also to commence a war with neighboring Iran.
And finally on this matter, the very claim that the Congress acting in conspiracy with the Executive Branch to commence and then wage an unlawful war must reach a threshold of constructive knowledge in the Congress that would have altered its decision to act in concert with the Bush Administration. Because the Bush Administration acted in large part through the agencies under its control to provide false and misleading information to Congress and its several Members, the case that Congress had constructive knowledge of the truth at the time is wholly untenable.
On a moral level, many Members of Congress are culpable, but justice in the United States is not and should not be tantamount to the pursuit of morality; instead, it is the uniform, unbiased application of the law to the facts of the case at trial.
Now, I shall address your implication that I am somehow "whining" about the war in Iraq without offering a "solution" of my own. By making such a statement, you render evidence of having not followed the most significant of my articles, several of which have set forth my judgment in terms that have not always comported with views of my readers. However, even to the extent that their thoughts, judgments, and opinions on these matters have been at odds with mine, they have made their cases in ways that were not only respectful and intelligent, but also informative. As they have laid out those thoughts of theirs, I have become better able to frame my own thinking and have been better equipped to handle in my own mind how to say what I have to say without offending those many readers of mine whom I respect as thinkers and greatly enjoy as interlocateurs.
This is what I wrote in my article, "On 'Troop Redeployment'" and re-iterated in "The Age of War":
"[W]e'll stay in Iraq. We'll stay until we're bloodied beyond recognition of our hubris, beyond recognition of our preeminence, beyond recognition of our once unquestioned status as the leader of the free world; and then we shall leave. We shall leave, not when we want to, not when we need to, not when we've had enough, but instead when we are no longer relevant to the history of the future of Iraq and perhaps no longer greatly relevant even to the history of the future of places far from that awful land.
"We may then come home to do our soul searching, our national finger-pointing, and our collective denial of that which we did and that which we would have done again were this not to have been our death knell as Empire."
This is the reality of the situation, Mark: no, we cannot "redeploy"; our troops will get slaughtered as they run the few gauntlets out of Iraq, just as retreating soldiers have been butchered in such pull-outs all through history. And staying means we'll bleed. We'll bleed and bleed, as I quite clearly stated, until our blood no longer matters.
And do you know what, Mark? This nightmare is not the fault of George W. Bush and his neo-cons any more than it is the fault of an American electorate, a U.S. Supreme Court, and millions and millions of good, upstanding, God-fearing, git-tuff-on-them-heathen Americans who let that mendacious, incompetent, detructive man sit in the Oval Office for these six miserable years.
To that point, you may save your sneering at me because I can do a pretty fair job of condemning myself for having a courage of my convictions sufficient to write eloquent words that have been, are, and will continue to be utterly worthless against the slow rip tide that is inexorably pulling this nation into the grim sea of history's tragedies that were once republics with great promise.
My useless words are the full and complete extent of what I am able to muster within myself to stop the history of the future from retelling an age-old story of evil men and exactly how it is that they can keep arriving on the stage despite all that is known about them, their ways, their lies, and their consequences.
On a brighter note, I am not unclear, regardless of whether or not my articles are read by some visitors before they seek substantive cause for an altercation in a dark alley behind a tavern that no politician of fine breeding and high bearing would allow himself to be seen in.
The Dark Wraith wanders back into the bar to see if Happy Hour is over yet.
Excellent, Wraith.
Brandy by the fireplace?
Espresso.
The Dark Wraith likes to toss the grounds onto the fire and watch the explosion.
there is no legitimate lawful reason to impeach bush.
LMAO! Good satire Mark.
Good evening, Mr. Goat.
So that's what that was.
Darn it!
The Dark Wraith once again misses the nuanced humor.
It was the legitimate lawful part that gave it away.
14 legitimate lawful reasons to impeach.
* 1. Leaking classified information by disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame to reporters.
Law violated: National Security Act of 1947.
* 2. Lying to congress -- passing false information about Iraq's WMD capacities.
Law violated: 18 USC 1001.
* 3. Extraordinary Renditions.
Law violated: 6th Amendment of the Constitution.
* 4. Detentions without Trial.
Law violated: 6th Amendment of the Constitution.
* 5. Torture.
Law violated: 8th Amendment.
* 6. Misappropriation of Funds.
Law violated: Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
* 7. Bombing Iraq without Congressional Approval.
Law violated: Article I, US Constitution.
* 8. Conspiracy to pass false information.
Law violated: 18 USC 1001 (see above).
* 9. Lying about Niger connection.
Law violated: 18 USC 1001 (see above).
*10. Contempt of Congress.
*11. Illegal wiretaps.
Law violated: 4th Amendment
*12. Concealment of the existence or nature of Domestic Intelligence Programs.
Law violated: 18 USC 1505
*13. Destruction of Evidence.
Law violated: 18 USC 1505 (see above).
*14. The use of White Phosphorus in Iraq.
Law violated: US Army Field Manual, Chapter 5, section 3.
DW, I have never seen (or read) anything quite like that (response) before. PU, I can almost smell the smoke of the ashes that once was something called Mark. I'm jealous of your grandmaster level verbal and logic skills. ROTFLMAOPIMP!
Anyhoo, as can be expected, now I am wary to disagree with you on anything. LOL However, I will (disagree) because I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't want me or anyone else to be afraid to speak (honestly and respectfully) in here.
DW, Perhaps I am "spiting hairs", but here goes nutin.
1. Shouldn't you more properly call this an occupation, instead of a war?
2. It has been my experience that school yard bullies often backed down when I stood up to them. And those that didn't, they we're always sufficiently humbled after I proved that I could kick their asses anytime I wanted. Btw, I grew up a poor white boy in one of the roughest NY ghetto's - so I'm lucky that I am a natural born fighter. I also trained hard to make myself even better. And thus, I guess, I may not have experienced bullies in the same way as most people. In any event, I think that while bush is a bully, he is also coward, and if he received any major hurt he would back down with his tail between his legs. The point being - he's not so tough - what's the worst that he has received out of this conflict, a paper cut perhaps? The Moral here: It's easy to send others (and other peoples children) to do the fighting, the killing, and the dying.
Well, that's my two cents. Please go easy on me, DW. Naw... just kidding, let her rip. I mean...as long as you don't think I was being a jackass, like that pile of smoldering ashes, that is. Wouldn't want to incur the wrath of the Dark Wraith...
P.S. Please consider making a page for all good thinking people to sign this wonderful editorial.
mwahaha, I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type this. I just shouted this editorial on shoutwire.com, and DW, I think you'll like the headline I gave it.
"Shoutwire Poster Smarts Off And Incurs The Unrelenting Wrath of The Dark Wraith"
http://tinyurl.com/2e9q4p
Everyone please consider taking a min. to join shoutwire and join in the conversation. It's sure to be a hoot.
Good afternoon, rcg. You are certainly a treasure.
I shall respond at length to your questions later this evening. Right now, I am on the road traveling across the Midwest this afternoon. I shall be at my base of operations tonight; but while I am offline, I must ask that you and the other regulars here open up the lounge so the usual Saturday evening festivities can proceed, even in my absence.
Tell everyone that the esressos are free unless they want to put in a splash of Tobasco sauce. Charge them fifty cents per slosh of the sauce.
And turn on the dance floor lights. Just make sure no one does any of that nude breakdancing. I hated the way the dancers were making that "SQEEEEK-AAARGH!" sound last time they tried the nude breakdancing on the linoleum.
The Dark Wraith will skid in as soon as he can.
Thanks for your reply DW. Despite the impressions of some of your other readers, I am not a "pile of smoldering ashes" as a result of your reply. One thing I will confess is that I have not read every single one of your posts since your blog's inception. I do not believe I should be penalized for this any more than you should be penalized for not having been personally present in every government meeting pertaining to the Iraq war. I am a reasonably informed US citizen who loves his country, and I hope that this is sufficient to be welcomed into your forum. With that said, i did click on the links you gave in your reply post...and once again I was struck how they give a Cassandra-like forecast of doom, gloom, failure, and bloodshed, but do not offer any other solutions other than the status quo. You say "here is what the USA WILL DO" and say we will remain in iraq and have more bloodshed. In fact, you go so far as to endorse the status quo by saying that pulling out would be an unmitigated disaster. So if this is the case, then your calls to impeach Bush are nothing more than scapegoat tactics...in the incredibly unlikely event that an impeachment would be successful in removing the president from office, if i understand you correctly, you are basically saying that the executive replacement would need to keep troops in Iraq rather than pull them out in order to avoid an increasing a disaster. In other words, maintain the status quo. So all you are doing is debating the issues of the past, which does nothing to help assuage the pressing problems of today, while maintaining that right now you would do the same thing Bush is doing in terms of iraq policy.
You reference De la Vega, one of the things she says is:
"The President's elaborate production was, and still remains, an entirely different story. It was a deliberate effort to create a permanent state of fear in America. And to say it was harmful is like saying that it hurts to get hit by a Mack truck."
To that I say two things
1) What motive does a patriotic american have to DELIBERATELY instill unnecessary fear in the public? I would argue none. Which means either the fear was necessary, or if it wasn't necessary, then it was not deliberate.
One can argue the fear was necessary if you feel like our nation was (and still is) under threat. (as I do)It is a president's #1 responsibility to protect our country and part of that entails warning the public if we are under threat.
Or one can argue that this was not deliberate, which makes sense when one considers no one knew definitively about whether Iraq had WMD, though the majority of the world felt it did. In other words we had an ambiguous threat, and there was no way to make it clear due to Hussein's refusal to cooperate fully, and so we acted on on incomplete information. Fair enough...
Either argument effectively removes the maliciousness from Bush's moves and makes it difficult to form a legitimate impeachment argument.
2) Both yours and de la Vega's argument makes the congress look like a bunch of chimpanzees. it is not the congress' job to ignore due diligence. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did their due diligence and after reviewing everything, still voted for the war... You say, Dw, in making the congress culpable regard
"the prosecution of the most egregious of the parties necessitates blanket or at least use immunity of others. "
Considering the number of members in the Executive branch versus the number of members in the legislative branch, granting so-called immunity to the entire legislative branch in order to prosecute a couple of people in the executive branch is frankly, ridiculous. Each member should be just as informed as the president as to the relevant issues of the day, and so if collectively they could not reach a "correct" decision about Iraq, then they are just as, if not more guilty than the president. With that said... i think if you go back to the time and day in which the decision was made, I think we do the EXACT same thing....hindsight is 20/20 Dark Wraith, and no one has ever claimed war to be perfect. Mistakes happen. To say that it sucks is an understatement...but having Saddam Hussein systematically opressing people sucks too...and to have our country under threat by an anti-american despot with WMD's and a history of complete disregard for human life sucks also. So pick your poison...If a president's #1 job is to protect the security of the country, I would argue Bush, with the support of congress, chose the best of two evils.
My mistake in the debate thus far is legitimizing impeachment as an option by discussing it....that's something even Pelosi is not doing....
Dark Wraith, do you have an eloquent post in you, which breaks down in simple terms, the course we should be taking in Iraq as of today which differs in any significant ways from the status quo? If so I would be extremely interested to read it because I, like many of us in the country, am looking for answers to this quagmire and may be able to benefit from the thoughts of deep thinkers such as yourself.
In plain English, he's a schoolyard bully ... ~Dark Wraith
That makes Americans the schoolyard bitches who tamely, gladly even, acquiesce to said bully's demands, each one hoping not to become the next object of his malicious caprice.
In fact, America does deal with terrorists. She places them in high office. That is why impeachment can't happen.
Our occupation of Iraq will end badly.It may very well end as the Wraith has suggested,or it may end with the total destuction of the 150,000 troops,the 100,000,mercinaries,as well as the massive armada that has been assembled off the coast of Iran.There has been no word officially from the boyo's holding our markers{750billion in china} and the russians have not said a word....but have supplied the Iranians with their most advanced surface-to-air missle defence system they have produced to date,I suppose for a real ,honest to god,"Hot"test against the most advanced millitary in the world.As this is the last industry that we now have,I hope tptb are satisfied.I have a deep,cold fear that the forces that have been commited to this war of choice will have a lot more on their plate than they can eat.The current head of our country ,I belive,is not just a bully,not just a instigator,nor is he just a religious nutball...I am starting to think this spawn of sick,alcohol-soaked socialite is the person who will singlehandedly destroy what is left of a once great country.
The whole world has good reason to wish for the destruction of the forces now gathered to begin this 1st phase of ww3.As Israel is set to start the next phase,no further justification will be given as a "cause" for the beginning.When the last of the 4 flattops is in position,then the destuction of Iran as a 21st century nationstate will beguin.
As the chinese have made a great many deals with the Iranian mullahs,I expect to see some blowback that we will not expect.
As war is a messy science at best,I expect to see prompt effect HERE very soon after the beguinnings of hostilities. What sooo many people dont understand is that America cannot continue to smash and bomb and murder,and not eventually pay the karma debt that this creates.
We have acted the empire for a long time now,in a world that has grown tired of our bloodthirsty pursuit of "our interests"
It is said that those who live by the sword also die by it.This confrontation we are headed into has the posibility of evolving into the sort of thing that no one can stop,and no one can control.This may be the plan...Bush and Cheny are facing the bar of justice in the form of a federal prosecutor investigateing the outing of a cia operative that was deeply involved in preventing the spread of WMD's...for political gain,and to silence critics in the intelligence agencys of their warmongering.
I have been following this trial of scooter libby,"traitorgate" as some call it,closely.My,and many others hope,is that the revelations that are now comeing to light will provide the congress enought raw meat,and enought public ourage to start Impeachment BEFORE THE WAR.If not,I fear the wrath of a world grown tired of the american war on terror that has spread terror to too many innocents. The actions of this crew of cutthroats running the country may well turn savage as the very real possibility of their loss of power becoms evident
Not one of the talking heads that pollute our media with their mindless conjecture has consitered the real possibility of war comeing HERE...our society is so ill-equipt to deal with advercity such as would be unleashed in the event of a all out war that,we would fold like wet cardboard box.
A brown skinned Iranian covert operative could melt into the mexican labor pool and be hidden in plain sight...as could a tiger team of 8 with the job of setting 100 carbombs across the usa....what would be left of our country after such a attack?...or twenty H.E. morter shells dropped in each of the 6 main refineries we get 40% of our gas from? The list of targets is endless.And there is not a damn thing we can do about it,except maybe not give every swingin dick in the middle east a chance at his 72 virgins by starting a endless war over oil.
The die will be cast in the next 6-10 weeks.I suggest 1000lb of beans and rice,and a fallout shelter if these clowns get their wish for a wider war in the middle east
Good afternoon Dark Wraith:
sheez. the old "no solution" tripe again. mercy. it pains me when after five years of cooking the intelligence books, going off half-cocked into this insane adventure, which has done nothing but degenerate bloodily and shows no hope of doing anything else but degenerating bloodily further they have the gall to ask for a "solution." ok, for a solution, here's mine. fight our way out of the green zone, begging the turks, iranians and saudis to cover our backs as we slink away and leave the place to thrive, rot, or blow the hell up according to the wishes of the people that are there. this will do nothing to recduce the bloodshed in the region, it will do nothing to stabilize the situation, it will also not produce a single outcome that would be different if we stay. this is the same situation we had in viet nam in '68. we fought bloodily and hard for a full eight months after the initial assaults of tet. eight months and many thousands of casualties later (anyone out there remember the 60-75 daily lists of the dead? i do, i knew some of them) we were exactly where we were before the assaults. in tenuous control of about 25% of the countryside. stay or go the outcome in bagdhad will have very little to do with anything the u.s. has done. i'm sorry but the bush plan has failed. failed miserably and spectacularly. it is beyond salvage. the only thing i can see to do is to save as many american lives as we can and pull back. pull back with the lives we have saved, rebuild the army, rearmor and wait.
i will gladly contribute to a fund to buy bush a blowjob so that these neocon morons might find themselves a legitimate, lawfull reason for an impeachment.
oh yeah, on the bully thing, i didn't stand up to one of my bullies, i snapped on him. i went nuts. i'm not a very big adult, but i was a scrawny runty kid. the bully who came away from that with a cut over his eye, a split lip and a broken nose was a much bigger kid. when he was told about the encounter me da's take on the situation (you'll have to imagine the gorgeous and musical brogue here)
Faith, and isn't it the truth, crazy beats big every day.
Yes, M' Boy,
It's the same old typical troll tripe trash, and the same old refusal to acknowlege or quibble with real facts when they are presented.
Mark,
IF you were REALLY reasonably informed you would not be saying the things you are.
We here all know well enough that a familiar Republican troll tactic is to repeatedly ask "what is your plan to rescue Bush from his debacle?"
No one penalizing you for not reading every eloquent post our highly esteemed host has made, but you are penalized for not facing the reality of known facts. No one here is advocating that we should maintain the status quo. This is Bush's war, and it should be his responsibility to get the U.S. out of it. He lied to get the U.S. into it. Using false, flawed and fixed intel as his excuse, he attacked a country that was not responsible for 9-11, was 'contained' in a control box, under sanctions, and was not a threat, as the administration well knew before Bush lied about that to the American people.
Flawed and fixed intel was given to a small congressional panel, who then reported that information to Congress. And based solely on that incorrect information the rest of congress was induced to give authority for military action ONLY if all other possibilities had failed. To say that congress voted FOR war is a stretch at best. Once that approval was given Bush charged like a bull into that china shop.
The old pottery barn rule: he broke it and he owns it. He is still the commander-in-chief until he leaves office, and until he does, he doesn’t give a damn what anyone says.
You should know all this by now, as one who claims to be reasonably informed.
What are Bush's plans to fix this quagmire? There aren't any. And that is why he will keep us in Iraq.
What motive does a patriotic american have to DELIBERATELY instill unnecessary fear in the public?
One would argue: for intimidation and control. It's a well-known dictatorial fascist tactic. So, one can argue that it WAS deliberate.
And Congress was a Republican controlled bunch of spineless rubber stamping of chimpanzees until recently. I would say that Bush and his republican controlled congress chose the worst of too many evils.
The jury is still out on new Democratic majority now in the Houses. They've not even been in office a month.
Each member should be just as informed as the president as to the relevant issues of the day, and so if collectively they could not reach a "correct" decision about Iraq,
And, they are not being given the information, even though this administration has been repeatedly asked for such. Therein lies a huge problem. You cannot honestly put any full blame on congress being as equally at fault as the president when the administration does not produce or offer true and factual data.
My mistake in the debate thus far is legitimizing impeachment as an option by discussing it...
Impeachment is and has been a very legitimate and widely accepted and discussed option.
To have our country under threat by an American despot with WMD's and a history of complete disregard for human life sucks also. So pick your poison...
Why do you think that now it is up to the Democrats to come up with a plan to fix the problems Bush created? You want simple terms and easy answers to a complicated situation.
You want a simple and easy answer? Fire bushco and get somebody in that has a working brain.
You have a computer and a keyboard. Go read something besides right wing sites. Learn. Think.
"Each member should be just as informed as the president as to the relevant issues of the day..."
I believe Joseph Wilson's and Valerie Plame's fates are well known, when it comes to trying to keep people informed.
And the ghastly part of Joe & Valerie's situation was that it was intended to intimidate not just them, but all of us, including the Congress.
"Each member should be just as informed as the president as to the relevant issues of the day..."
www.wsws.org/:
"The major national newspapers and most broadcast outlets failed even to report Thursday’s stunning testimony by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is among the most prominent figures within the US foreign policy establishment. He delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the policy of the Bush administration was leading inevitably to a military confrontation with Iran which would have disastrous consequences for US imperialism."
Good evening, Mark, and welcome back.
I shall be as blunt as I possibly can at this point.
No, I do not have a way to get us out of the quagmire in Iraq, and that's because there is no way out. Not right now, anyway. And there will be no way out until we've been beaten to the point where our exit is no longer important. We are in the full-blown vortex of war that is beyond the scope of resolution by even those agents who believe they are its masters.
Vietnam was the same. Those protesters in the '60s and '70s were not going to get that war to end no matter what they did, no matter how hard they chanted, no matter how many of them got executed by National Guardsmen.
Chris Hedges wrote a book entitled, War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, but I would respectfully point out to that fine writer that he misses the point, as do the legislators now calling for "immediate withdrawal," or some other such not-gonna-happen wish. Whether or not war gives us meaning isn't the point; the point is that war is a force that has its own meaning: once brought to sufficient life, it lives of its own accord, by its own physics, and within its own boundaries of time of endurance and space of consumption.
We don't get out of Hell until the Devil is bored with our wailing. The American-Iraqi War will expand before it contracts. You can't stop that from happening, I can't stop it from happening, the Democratic majorities in the Houses of Congress can't stop it from happening, and the rest of the world can't stop it from happening.
That's how it is, Mark.
I am not some childish, naïve, neo-conservative fool who thinks some political theory based on distorted reconstructions of history can be slapped into practice by a modern superpower state and have a snowball's chance in Hades of actually working.
Lies got us into this mess, Mark. The bad part is that the truth will not get us out. The best the truth can do at this point is clarify for us just how bad this situation is.
I am increasingly short on patience when I hear the Republican and Democrat Sunshine-and-Hope Brigade of candidates talking about the world of tomorrow as if it's all a matter of our nation's people just saddling up, rolling up our sleeves, and getting that good old-fashioned can-do American spirit back in our blood to make things right.
Well, Mark, it isn't going to work that way.
Bush's American-Iraqi War is going to become a greater conflagration; the Republicans' ungodly fiscal irresponsibility is going to become the death knell of American global economic dominance; the Right-wing hate crowd's venomous rhetoric is going to poison everything from civil debate to judicial rulings for years to come; and the corrosion of the regulatory framework controlling the excesses of businesses is going to ensure environmental, worker safety, and product reliability disasters that will take several administrations to slow down.
The Bush Administration has used fear as the tool of power consolidation in a unitary Executive. A recent signing statement made by George W. Bush actually baldly used that abhorrent term, "unitary executive," in defiantly declaring that its agents could open domestic mail as the Administration deemed necessary for national security.
Fear is a powerful weapon: it is far, far more powerful than reason. If I want power, and if I believe that a civil, reasoned, calm, rational explanation will win the day over the bludgeon of "clear and present danger," "mushroom clouds," "weapons of mass destruction," and all the other fear-inducing rhetoric this Administration cranks out, I am a fool.
Right now, a fickle American electorate is toying with an old dalliance with the attractions of progressivism; but mark my word, if there's something even close to a terrorist attack in this country, you just watch the people run screaming back to the Right-wing authoritarians, just begging them, "Please, please, take away our civil liberties, just as long as you make us feel like we're safer, whether or not we actually are, even though it's been on your watch that foreign-sponsored terrorism has visited our shores with such awful effect."
Tell me this, Mark: do you really, really believe this Administration has not used fear as a weapon of political docilization of the American public?
And while we're at it—and here, I am speaking as an old-time conservative, the kind young people have no idea even exists and the kind the older people have forgotten can exist—tell me, when exactly was it that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton used fear to force Congress to cede massive amounts of power to the Executive Branch? Every one of those Presidents I just named went through crises of historic proportions, yet somehow they managed to govern without reverting to fear, fear, fear instead of action within the confines of their office. Even Reagan, when his people broke the law and got caught in the Iran-Contra scandal, backed down and allowed moderates to drag him back toward the center of political life in his second term. Clinton chose not to define his Presidency by fear, despite the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City or the subsequent Millennium Plot his FBI thwarted without fanfare. George H.W. Bush chose not to pump his campaign for re-election full of hot air about Saddam Hussein, despite the fact that Saddam had actually committed aggression with which Bush dealt both swiftly and fairly effectively.
Where was the fear rhetoric, the venal actions, the malignant secrecy, the stunning incompetence, and the constant harangue of excuses for the defiance of the rule of law with the Presidents that came before our current President, the Midget among the Mighty of the past 50 years?
What do Bush and Cheney do? First, they try to hide their criminal acts; then, when they're caught, instead of backing down, they say, "Yeah, and you know what? We did it because it's the only way to deal with these threats we now face, which are totally different from anything that's come before us. We occupy a place so special in the history of this republic that we can disregard the rule of law at our will."
That attitude in practice has led, despite your claims to the contrary, to impeachable offenses. That attitude in the theory of governance of a democratic republic is damnable.
We have no solutions until we have a Congress far more promising than the way this current one is starting. The prospects for anything even remotely like hope will be absent unless and until Congress has the guts to stand up and assert that we will not be afraid of our rich-boy President any more than we will be afraid of a rich-boy criminal madman from Saudi Arabia, despite the curious coincidence of their equal willingness and ability to use fear and overwhelming violence to make themselves important beyond their intellects and personal strengths,
I do not offer hope where I see none. If you want hope, go listen to John Edwards or Barrack Obama whistle through the graveyard. Obama is especially entertaining now that he and Hillary are on the same wavelength about how it's now up to the Iraqis to fix their own mess. (How convenient, that.)
If you can't do without fear, then try some that's not boring, like the kind Al Gore pumps out now that his and his wife's gig about video game violence causing kids to turn into howling demons has run its course. If you want fear that's pretty amusing in its absurdity, listen to a couple of the Right-wing Republican candidates. If you want fear that's rather novel, listen to John McCain, just because his face has turned so weird looking it could scare the blind.
But for God's sake, Mark, don't tell me to solve George W. Bush's mess. It's too late.
And you know what? Maybe that's the only way all the people who voted for Mr. Bush, especially those who voted for him twice, are going to wake up and notice the urgent message from Clueville that their right to vote did not confer upon them the concommittant right to wreck this nation with their butch stupidity followed by their vapid look of confusion as they peer around the political corner hoping to find a sucker to clean up the mess their idiot made.
Mark, you have within you the potential to be a fine thinker. Let go of the scripts people of lesser minds are pumping out across the Blogosphere. You can do better. Maybe you can even come up with an idea of how to repair the catastrophic damage this Administration has wrought.
I doubt seriously that I'm going to be wrong about the ineffectiveness of any measures to turn this nation around, but I'm always willing to have some hope.
Okay, I'm not always willing to have some hope, but maybe if some solution really does work, I'll be happy, if only because it will irritate me so much that I was wrong.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty good at predicting the future, especially as long as I stick to predictions that are dire; and I owe a debt of gratitude to the neo-conservatives for making that so.
The Dark Wraith is about out of electrons to commit to the comments section here for the evening.
DW,
Yeah, ain't it a hoot that the people (and their supporters) that screw things up are always the ones trying to lay blame when things don't work? The respond in the form of "What's your solution?" to the ones who were against the plans in the first place?
"OK, we screwed it up and can't offer a solution because we're just too damned stupid to look ahead, so if it can't be fixed, it's now your problem", they say.
Or more to the point, "It's not my fault!" (Han Solo)
Hey maroons, you did it; you take credit; you screwed up...so let someone else fix it their way, and while a solution is offered, shut up about it.
But when the Democrats offer something, the wasted minds on the right and their leader run to the press and say it won't work.
Talk about incompetence and ineptitude?
You had your way and say and you can't offer squat. Got any other brilliant non-workable ideas; like trying to find an intelligent conservative that cares about anyone other than big business? (Intelligent conservative is an oxymoron.)
A president is supposed to hire the best qualified people to advise him. He didn't. When reason appeared he let his personal prejudice and agenda get in the way.
But the worst part is that he just doesn't care about us.
It's like Gore Vidal said about W, (in a high pitched, whining tone)"I'm a war president, I'm a war president!"
Schoolyard bully!
DW,
Yeah, ain't it a hoot that the people (and their supporters) that screw things up are always the ones trying to lay blame when things don't work? The respond in the form of "What's your solution?" to the ones who were against the plans in the first place?
"OK, we screwed it up and can't offer a solution because we're just too damned stupid to look ahead, so if it can't be fixed, it's now your problem", they say.
Or more to the point, "It's not my fault!" (Han Solo)
Hey maroons, you did it; you take credit; you screwed up...so let someone else fix it their way, and while a solution is offered, shut up about it.
But when the Democrats offer something, the wasted minds on the right and their leader run to the press and say it won't work.
Talk about incompetence and ineptitude?
You had your way and say and you can't offer squat. Got any other brilliant non-workable ideas; like trying to find an intelligent conservative that cares about anyone other than big business? (Intelligent conservative is an oxymoron.)
A president is supposed to hire the best qualified people to advise him. He didn't. When reason appeared he let his personal prejudice and agenda get in the way.
But the worst part is that he just doesn't care about us.
It's like Gore Vidal said about W, (in a high pitched, whining tone)"I'm a war president, I'm a war president!"
Schoolyard bully!
DW,
Sorry for the stutter....it's not my fault!!!LOL!
Bush's Impeachable Offenses, Part 1: a chronological account of the actions of President George W. Bush leading U.S. illegally to war with Iraq.
Yes, Father Tyme. It's like I said when my espresso machine detonated because I packed it with too much espresso. (Hey, how was I supposed to know you weren't supposed to put a whole can of espresso into that little container with a pneumatic impactor? It's not like there was anything about that in the instruction manual, y'know!)
Anyway, talk about a mess. Coffee everywhere, steam pumping out of the crater the thing made, and then the neighbors calling the utility company because they thought a gas line had exploded.
Boy, was I ever embarrassed! Fortunately, a lot of the espresso started dripping back down from the ceiling, so I put a big pot underneath it and had myself one darned fine drink. Cripe, if I can figure out a way to muffle the sound of the explosion, I might try that again sometime.
The Dark Wraith knows how to brew the burly bean.
Once again...for two days in a row, I sit here in awe, with my mouth hanging open. And I do not say this flippantly, for I cannot recall how many years have passed since this has happened to me. DW, your latest response was another work of genius/art. *And Mark/Mag, if that didn't snap you out of your fantasy, nothing short of a cold slap in the face from God will.
And hey, DW, please don't let my praise swell your head. Sure, you're a genius (both logically and creatively), but from the responses of 99% of your commenter's - you are not the only one.
*after having spoken to mag many times on shoutwire, I strongly suspect that this is him.
hey... can someone please pass me a cup of that strong espresso? That's how I like it. Yum Yum.
(minstrel boy, while sipping some delightful blue mountain espresso with a twist of lemon, invokes the memory of san andreas, patron saint of californians and innocent bystanders who famously first said "It's not MY fault.")
... if that didn't snap you out of your fantasy, nothing short of a cold slap in the face from God will. ~rcg
If I were a believer, I might say that the fact of the war and attendant brutalities *is* a slap in the in the face from God; and that, because no one seems to be paying attention, the next one He seems to be winding up will be clenched fist.
"...because no one seems to be paying attention, the next one He seems to be winding up will be clenched fist." -- jahf
Something, jahf, along the lines of "He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword" perhaps?
Makes me wonder if gigologeorge would change his tune from "Bring 'em on" to "ooOOOHH SHIT!"
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw quite a while back:
"Jesus IS returning, and boy, is he PISSED!"
Makes me wonder if gigologeorge would change his tune from "Bring 'em on" to "ooOOOHH SHIT!" ~PeterofLoneTree
I don't see why Shrub would change his tune. He isn't doing the bleeding or paying the money for it.
I expect that Shrub will do better even than one Augusto Pinochet and not even be charged.
Good Morning Dark Wraith,
GODDESS, it's good to see you in such fine form. A smackdown like that does my ol' heart good.
Just posted over at the BBB an article from Alternet that is one of the best I've seen on the whole pile of crap that we've been abused by for the last 30 years, if not more. It's a fairly long read, but it's a damn big story. If this continues with the peasants not rising up with torches, pitchforks and clubs to destroy this monster then I just quit.
It seems to me now that any dumbshit could see through these profiteering neo-con turds.
Somehow the blogger identity screwed up yesterday and my good grief was listed as anonymous. That was the only reply I could come up with for Mark. I really wouldn't waste too much time on fools, they tend to dig their own graves. Although they also tend to drag others down into the hole with them.
Sometimes organic carbon is simply organized bullshit.
Mark has been listening to way to much Sean Hannity.
First, impeachment is a political not a legal process.
Congress can try to impeach if they don't like the way that Condi ties Bush's shoelaces.
Second, Bush and Blair said the whole world thought that Saddam had WMDs, but they lied. Sure Rush Limbaugh on a bottle of oxycontin said so, and that convinced Americans with short attention spans, but that didn't make it true.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and Rice all said that Saddam didn't have WMDs, until they saw a good political reason to lie about it.
As to plans, there have been many alternate plans proposed. But the only plans that Bush wants are plans for escalation.
Bush has also made it clear that the law and US Constitution do not apply to him. Sean Hannity, Rush Libaugh and others agree.
Bush could go on tour beating babies to death with a baseball bat and he wouldn't be impeached. Mark, Rush and Sean would all argue that the law doesn't apply and the if Bush thinks its necessary to beat babies to death to fight terrorism, then we need to support his efforts.
Bill O'Reilly would just give long monologues about how much the babies seem to enjoy being beaten to death.
I agree that we're at a historical point where this war will have to burn itself out. After it escalates, after the return of the draft and major military defeats, public attention will force the end of the war. For now, there are far too many lawmakers shoving luchre in their pockets, to gain a meaningful protest from them. If the war ends, the gravy train dries up.
When a bull wrecks a china shop, no one stands around suggests ways for the bull to repair the damage and run the shop. the first order is to get bull out of the shop, then get someone in that has the capacity to put the shop back into order.
The US wrecked Iraq and the US cannot fix it.
Good evening, Weaseldog, and welcome to The Dark Wraith Forums.
Your analogy using the bull in the china shop was just excellent, right down to the point that we don't hand ownership of the shop to the bull that made the mess in the first place.
In defense of the bull, I suppose I could admit that he, unlike the neo-cons, might have a passing sense of remorse for the mistakes he has made, but the only reason for that is his likely fate as the featured special in the meat aisle at the supermarket, a fate the neo-cons will not suffer.
Paul Wolfowitz, for example, is now the head of the World Bank. Even Scooter Libby is on the payroll of a conservative think tank; and I envisage just about every other member of the Bush dream team that conjured up this nightmare going off into the sunset of punditry, authorship, and high thinking in the bowels of Right-wing think tanks.
Perhaps that is as it should be, though: while I would be more than glad to dine on select parts of the bull that destroyed a nice china shop, I'm not all that certain I would, with equal favor, dine on even the finest cuts of neo-con, despite their prolific production of bull for these past six long years.
Although I'll try just about any culinary delight once, the thought of eating some things is beyond even my robust appetite. Hence my suggestion that we take the neo-cons out, and after dispatching them, allow the dog chow producers to do what they must.
The Dark Wraith isn't all that sure, however, that the dogs would appreciate the delicacy.
We should give the bull to the china shop owner as a gesture of good faith and partial compensation for the damages.
What the china shop owner does with the bull is his business.
Ford set the stage for these problems when he pardoned Nixon and prevented the crooks of that time from being prosecuted. They continued to commit crimes in subsequent administrations.
And apologists for criminals will always be with us. Because powerful criminals are idolized like rock stars by those that wish to wield such power themselves. And so we have folks like Mark, that know that Bush and crew are criminals, but out of worship of raw power, they look the other way. People who don't understand basic morality and don't respect the rule of law, will always be with us.
The following events will probably play out as 2008 approaches.
Bush pardons Cheney.
Bush resigns.
Cheney pardons Bush.
Bush
"...I'm not all that certain I would, with equal favor, dine on even the finest cuts of neo-con..."
Wheeeeww! The thought of that is just about enough to drive a vulture off a gut wagon.
DW:
back in late November when the pragmatic bloggers at myDD counseled against impeachment because it would be divisive and dissapate rather than build the untried popularity of the new congress, I was reluctantly inclined to agree with those priorities. I thought the 100 hours could build trust in congress among a nation that should have lost all trust in the presidnet. That might set the stage for impeachment later. I only saw impeachement as a critical precedent and teaching opportunity: exposure and official censure of bush and cheny lieing and corrupting their way to their dream of empire would put their remaining support base on notice that the staggering cost of cleaning up all the bushite debris could not be blamed on the subsequent administrations to whom that cleanup task will fall.
But, since then, Bush has demonstrated that he cannot see anything wrong with his war nor hear anything his citizens or their representatves have to say. So I now agree with you: attack the sonofabush on all fronts, get him out of office before he can order more troops into battles and then hold them hostage to extort money from congress, who care more for them as people and, in their care, become as confused as the rear guard of war supporters who conflate support of troops with support of war, a stunning triumph of emotion over reason.
[please excuse any dup. commenting. we are experiencing technical difficulties with our old-blogger identity here]
Weasel Dog.
That's no bull.
But, I think its a steer and a bum one at that.
Other than Chalabi, the lone person to run out and sprinkle roses on the approaching US tanks, I don't know who the hell our friends in Iraq ever were. By now there is no faction left who would not cheerfully and slowly barbeque that steer, live, on a spit.
Impeachment, in the process of taking down these wannabe dictators, would finally give the machinations of the Neocon influence the harsh exposure it has so far only gotten in such places as I, DW and a few thousand disgusted others blog. With that tar on them, I think the authors of the new american riech would go more into eclipse than into the sunset. I look for precedents...Roger Colson got religion but only John Dean seems to have made Tshuva and gotten redemption.