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.
Thank you.
I'm guessin only you and really dumb nurse woulda put a diaper on a turd.
yup!
Good to see you, Peach! :-) Are you on with-drawl (pun intended) from that Southern drama since the bridesmaids and ex's have talked and she's clammed up?
I'm 69.
This craziness too will pass.
I know many Christians who look forward to ... oh, nevermind.
In any case, not all Christians are theocons.
It's true that there are few conservatives left in Congress.
Bush is just ramping up revenues for 30 years of RAT socialism. Govenment spending is pretty much on autopilot when it comes to entitlements, blmae 30 years of RAT control of spending.
I happen to believe our conservative salvation will come from the South.
Party? Who cares.
Sex? Who cares?
Race> Who cares?
Do you have the reference for where the no-flies were agreed to? I recall looking through UN Resolution 688, and the others, and seeing that we had the right to intervene, but I don't recall them agreeing to the no-fly the way it was implemented.
BTW, I was very vocal at the time in saying that Bush was going about it wrong by playing up the WMD angle. The true and legal justification for going in was in the UN Resolutions. IOW, I'm not just giving a post hoc critique.
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. :-(
See...comments like that are why both neocons and paleocons hate me. :-)
Do you know much about George Allen of Virginia? I need to learn more about him.
Look it up yourself!
Huh?
Do you have a source showing your claim that Bush hasn't increased spending beyond automatic adjustments?
I don't think he made us look like fools. Only the idiots that didn't like our position thought that and we know now they were all bribed by Saddam.
I thought the no-fly zones were in the ceasefire agreement.
I'm old and tired, but I'd love to give it a try. ;o)
I am not bound to look up anything, since I have already cited the points made by the President in his speech before the UN.
You know very well I don't reply to you.
There is only two issues The President should be held accountable for and they are significant enough to warrant serious consequences if he persists. One... Ramming a Palestenian State down The Jewish Nation's throat and refusing to secure the borders of our Country and dealing with Illegal Immigration. If he does then it is serious to consider the alternative action of Impeachment!
Because you can'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.