Posted on 05/20/2005 1:26:39 PM PDT by KidGlock
CHRONICLES EXTRA | EVENTS | HOME
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
A Reputation in Tatters
George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation. It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America’s reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the United States.
America can redeem itself only by holding Bush accountable.
As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush’s far more serious lies. Bush’s lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America’s reputation, caused 1 billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting.
America’s reputation is so damaged that not even our puppets can stand the heat. Anti-American riots, which have left Afghan cities and towns in flames and hospitals overflowing with casualties, have forced Bush’s Afghan puppet, “President” Hamid Karzai, to assert his independence from his U.S. overlords. In a belated act of sovereignty, Karzai asserted authority over heavy-handed U.S. troops whose brutal and stupid ways sparked the devastating riots. Karzai demanded control of U.S. military activities in Afghanistan and called for the return of the Afghan detainees who are being held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Abundant evidence now exists in the public domain to convict George W. Bush of the crime of the century. The secret British government memo (dated July 23, 2002, and available here), leaked to the Sunday Times (which printed it on May 1, 2005), reports that Bush wanted “to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. . . . The (United Kingdom) attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC (U.N. Security Council) authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.”
This memo is the mother of all smoking guns. Why isn’t Bush in the dock?
Has American democracy failed at home?
COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Try to keep it concise so somebody will read it.
LOL. I didn't even know any of them talked. We were out of town and I guess I missed a few things.
"The (United Kingdom) attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC (U.N. Security Council) authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult."
The writer doesn't mention that the so-called memo which he quotes has been proclaimed a forgery by the United Kingdom attorney general; and at present there is a full-scale inquiry going on to find who forged it.
Not only did Muslims hate Carter but rabbits did too
I was a respected liberal for 47 years(since birth), the last 4 I have been conservative. People change. Maybe he went liberal the way I went conservative.
People change.
You are correct. The UN resolutions were sufficient. I said the same at the time.
By making the legal argument, with true justification, Bush would have had a stronger position in dealing with the UN, too. But he just had to play the emotional card, and that's where he lost. Rather than making the UN fools, he made us look that way. :-(
This is where you're not being completely fair to Bush. The reason for the emphasis on WMD's was because Tony Blair told him that was the only basis upon which he could secure sufficient support in Parliament. It was a mistake, but hindsight is always easier than foresight.
See...comments like that are why both neocons and paleocons hate me. :-)
I used to play USCF tournament chess. In chess there's a saying: "You can play your opponent, or you can play the board." I prefer to play the board!
Correction.
Propaganda is propaganda,
dont laugh at British law, at least those guys speak a form of English
Not worthy of response.
"Bush’s lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America’s reputation, caused 1 billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting"
"deaths of tens of thousands?" that's like 10k plus...where has this occured exactly?
"destroyed americas reputation?" 9-11 destroyed america's people.
"caused muslims to hate america." What planet is this idiot from?
"created a police state at home?" that he did.
"squandered 300 billion?" What president or congress hasn't?
From the tenor of his article, it sounds like he has either joined the Paleocon Buchananite "pitchfork brigade", or has waded so deeply into valueless Libertarianism that he no longer sees Evil for what it is. Either way, he's off the reservation. My experience has been: scratch a Paleocon and you'll find an anti-Semite underneath. Scratch a Libertarian, and you'll find a coward.
Do you suppose the rabbit knew something?
Nope. I don't see them there. I'm looking at http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html. It's not the UN site itself, but is easier to use and I don't see differences between the docs there and the ones at http://documents.un.org/globalE.html.
Anyway, it seems that the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones were set up in April 1991 and August 1992, respectively, to protect the Kurds and Shiites, respectively, were trying to overthrow Saddam. Nothing in the ceasefire mentions them at all.
Clinton extended the Southern one, too, and attacked targets outside it.
rabbits are the first to know
I'm kinda hopeful, bur bascially in the same boat as you.
Probably goes back to the 6-Day War.
Yes why do you ask ?
For sure.
But Paul hasn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.