The Bush/Cheney White House team will not be stopped by anything short
of impeachment. Their breaking and circumventing numerous laws has only
led to pathetically spunkless inquiries. Far more than one can actually
count, yet many for which exists the very public admission of the
president himself. It seems that a predominantly Republican Congress had
consistently considered Bush somehow more forgivable and morally
superior for his countless crimes than Richard Nixon for his few, or
Bill Clinton for his one. Yet strangely, even Democrats had been on side
of such denial. The public rallied against the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
but most every politician wasn't listening. Any other citizen committing
even one of the Bush crimes would have been locked away long ago, but by
ensuring the office of the president sacrosanct and beyond reproach,
politicians fell into the trap of preserving their own positions at the
socio/economic risk of the entire nation, and as well as that of others.
For every exception made for Bush, the price paid was one less liberty,
accumulating into practically dictatorial powers. I believe that all of
the previous Congress should be held responsible as the co-conspirators
they have been (exceptions: Kucinich) for every vote in which they
supported Bush in his crimes.
But of course, that will never happen. No, they were all misled. Somehow
they had no access to nor open-mindedness to consider alternate views,
nor common sense. Somehow, the lives of innocent Iraqis failed to enter
their thoughts, even as the war escalated and Iraqi citizen casualties
soared. It seemed that only one politician possessed any basic No Child
Left Behind math skills, as well. Perhaps it's this co-miscreant aspect
which has held them all back, consciously or not, because they've
certainly had countless reasons to proceed with impeachment.
I find it reprehensible that the new Congress would actually wait for
yet one more reason, such as Iran, to proceed with the job that voters
assigned them when they went to the polls. Voters want an end to the war
and all damage incurred and inflicted by the Bush White House, and there
is only one way to begin to undo that. How can they stand by, letting
Bush continue to break laws and further restrict liberties and due
process? How much more damage will they continue to let slide, waiting
for Bush's first excuse to invade Iran, let alone carry out any other of
his whimsical and thoroughly insane notions?
Actually, hang the war crimes, national bankruptcy and restriction of
civil liberties as reasons for impeachment. They should just go for
reasons of insanity to save on costs. It would be more of a deterrent
for future dictators, and the Bush family and their White House would
have to live with a stigma that the label of war criminal just can't
seem to do for their ilk.
With all of these distractions and delays, the US media can hardly focus
on the significance of the UN IPCC report on climate change. If Bush is
not removed from office soon, the window of opportunity for positive
change is going to slam on US fingers.
BTW, I learned that it is actually Nancy Pelosi, as House Speaker, who
is second in line to the presidency, such that one needn't worry about
the remaining Bush staff should an impeachment actually happen before
Bush realizes a complete police state. Perhaps in this one can find the
real reason behind Pelosi's statement that impeachment is unnecessary:
should impeachment come about, no one could accuse her of conspiring to
impeach in order to gain presidential office. In the alternative,
perhaps she would rather not assume office. Well, we'll find out if
she's thoroughly ambitious soon enough.
Natalia Kuzmyn
*********************
Karen Watters Cole wrote:
Background reporting:
LA Times' Maura Reynolds US can't prove Iran link to Iraq strife
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-iran3feb03,1,2524049.story
Vanity Fair's Craig Unger From the wonderful folks who brought you
Iraq http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703
Fearful of being exposed in the same WMD charade it played invading
Iraq, the Bush administration is painting Iran as the gangsta neighbor
that justifies Bush's Surge, trillions in treasury and thousands more
killed or injured, and the very real trigger for a Middle East
regional war.
While Iran is by no means a Cub Scout, overplaying the threat of
nuclear weapons - which the experts say is unlikely and not an
immediate threat - only serves to confirm to jihadists that an
imperial USA will do anything to secure oil, permanently occupy giant
bases in the lands of Mecca, and impose puppet governments as
prematurely branded democracies. Accusing Iran of infiltrating Iraq to
kill American troops distracts from previous lies exposed.
Like the neoConservative pre-9/11 plans to topple Saddam Hussein, who
had nothing to do with those attacks, invading Iran has been a special
project of Bibi Netanyahu, who presented a paper, "Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm", advocating wars with Iraq, Iran,
Lebanon and Syria, to influential neoCons Perle and Feith, as well as
American-Israel policy experts Mr. & Mrs. David Wurmser, who now
advises VP Cheney. Netanyahu subscribes to the theory that warfare is
the best and most efficient means to an end.
Why this matters: The White House ordered Stratcom, the command group
that supervises nuclear weapons and missile defense, to devise
tactical plans for a punishing air and naval strike on Iran. New bases
in Bulgaria and Romania are already receiving additional missiles,
planes and equipment and eventually, troops. The President and Vice
President have said they can launch an attack without Congressional
approval, and will do so, citing Commander in Chief authority.
Here are a few recent OpEds about the runaway unilaterialism of the
Current Occupant.
Pat Buchanon Israel's war will be sold as America's War
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54008
Larry Diamond, who Sec. Rice selected in 2004 to advise the Coalition
Provincial Authority, Congress Must Stop an attack on Iran
"When Bush signed the Iraq war resolution, he issued a statement
challenging the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, indicating
that he could take the nation to war without obeying its restrictions.
Unfortunately, even if the president were to agree to the act's
restrictions, he could still attack Iran and have up to 90 days before
being required to get congressional authorization for the attack.
What to do? Congress should not wait. It should hold hearings on Iran
before the president orders a bombing attack on its nuclear
facilities, or orders or supports a provocative act by the U.S. or an
ally designed to get Iran to retaliate, and thus further raise war fever.
....The law should be attached to an appropriations bill, making it
difficult for the president to veto. If he simply claims that he is
not bound by the restriction even if he signs it into law, and then
orders an attack on Iran without congressional authorization for it,
Congress should file a lawsuit and begin impeachment proceedings."
It is, of course, possible that the president's truculent language and
actions toward Iran are a bluff, an attempt to rein in its
irresponsible behavior.
But the administration's mendacious and incompetent course of action
in taking the nation to war with Iraq gives us no reason to provide
the president with the benefit of any doubt. And stiffening economic
sanctions -- at a time when Iran's economy is ailing and the regime is
losing popular support -- offers a better and safer prospect of
exerting leverage.
Another war of choice would only pour fuel on the fires of the Middle
East. And the history of this administration shows that if Congress
does not constrain this president, he could well act recklessly again,
in ways that would profoundly damage our national interest."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-weiss5feb05,0,4991100.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
The Atlantic's James Fallows Where Congress Can Draw the Line: "War
with Iran would be a catastrophe that would make us look back fondly
on the minor inconvenience of being bogged down in Iraq.
"If we could trust the Administration's ability to judge America's
rational self-interest, there would be no need to constrain its
threatening gestures toward Iran. Everyone would understand that this
was part of the negotiation process; no one would worry that the
Administration would finally take a step as self-destructive as
beginning or inviting a war.
But no one can any longer trust the Administration to recognize and
defend America's rational self-interest -- not when the President says
he will carry out a policy even if opposed by everyone except his wife
and dog, not when the Vice President refuses to concede any mistake or
misjudgment in the handling of Iraq. According to the constitutional
chain of command, those two men literally have the power to order a
strike that would be disastrous for their nation."
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/congress-iraq
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
