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.
No, my fellow FReeper, the administration has finally denied all that horse shit, and no, I'm not gonna spend a half hour documenting it.
I guess I should take it that you made up the stuff about Bush's spending?
Just because I don't want a socialist Dem means I have to praise a statist? Hmmm...I praise our president where he deserves it, but I am still not happy with the damage he is doing. I'm sorry, but "it could be worse" is no principle for running a country or judging leaders. Kinda like "your honor, if I hadn't robbed him, he coulda spent that money on drugs!"
I'd rather President Bush treated our borders as borders, treated our Constitution as a Constitution, and treated our citizens as having the right to make decisions for themselves without being monitored. But yes, he could be FAR worse, and I give him credit for supporting the troops, trying to restore some class to the office of president, etc.
Good post.
Sorry Pal, your post is a total very sorry surrender.
No pal, it's reality. Welcome to the real world.
Time to put Paul Craig Roberts on full ignore.
" Why haven't you moved o Mexico?"
Because I would rather move to Argentina or Tazmania than Mexico.
More bluster. You won't because you can't, and the administration has done no such thing as to deny it.
Let's make it real easy - do you affirm or deny that the intervention was authorized by a joint resolution of Congress? Do you affirm or deny that the Clinton administration believed that there were WMD in Iraq? Do you affirm or deny that casus belli was not the presence of WMD but the refusal of Saddam to provide proof that numerous UN resolutions required that he had destroyed the WMD known to exist? Those were my points. Refute them or concede them.
....to the shores of Tripoli.....
Fightin' words, my FRiend.
What did we prove by by verifying that fact, other than if you don't want it to happen to you, you better get a nuclear deterrent?
You and Peach are dumber than a pile of rocks.
I guess North Korea and Iran will test that theory.
I swear, your honor...I knew the gun was loaded!
I see you've been rereading your posts.
I see you understand full well how he'll respond. He has nothing else.
Facts mean nothing to some freepers and their desire to undermine the Bush presidency is so obvious that I often wonder who is paying them because surely there is no reason to come here without a paycheck as their ideology is so far removed from conservatism.
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.