Friday, July 18, 2008

Impeachment or Jail for George W. Bush?

In case you had not heard it from your usual news sources, Rep. Dennis Kucinich filed articles of impeachment against President George Bush. Even though he narrowed the focus from 35 articles to one, the Democrat faction of the War Party doesn't want to upset their chances of getting back in power. So they've followed Nancy Pelosi's lead and sent the mattter to the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings -- but not for impeachment. Rep. John Conyers, the man who would give the go ahead to impeachment, continues to stall.

The Democrats have had two years with a Congressional majority to impeach Bush and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They continue to give Bush everything he needs in funding and spying authority to act at will. Perhaps they have a "secret plan" to end the Iraq war but can't implement until they have a Democrat President. I guess 70% of citizen opposition to the war is not enough support to give them a little bit of backbone!

Paul Craig Roberts notes that "
Little War Criminals Get Punished, Big Ones Don't." Bush, Cheney, Blair and the rest get free passes to murder, maim and destroy, while petty tyrants like Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, gets faces charges from the UN's International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Vincent Bugliosi (the man who prosecuted Charles Manson), recently released a book that says
Bush should be behind bars. In The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, he lays out his evidence outlining what questions he would ask Bush at a potential murder trial. He believes Bush should be charged with the murders of over 4,000 American soldiers who have died in Iraq since the American-led invasion of that country because of the strong evidence that Bush launched that invasion under false pretenses. Watch an interview with him here.
__________________________________________
Ex CIA Analyst Ray McGovern says Iraq Prime Minister Maliki's
call for a timetable for the US to withdraw its troops from Iraq blows out another false reason for continuing the US presence. After all, we said we'd leave when they asked us to.

The rationale increases for Israel to attack Iran, provoke an incident, or even pull off one of their famous "
false flag" operations (like the Madrid train bombing?) to further entangle the US. McGovern concludes: "the Israelis are likely to be preparing a September/October surprise designed to keep the U.S. bogged down in Iraq and in the wider region by provoking hostilities with Iran."

Scott Ritter, the UN weapons inspector who correctly showed that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction before the invasion, details the likely
disastrous consequences of an attack on Iran. He reminds us "that no plan survives initial contact with the enemy, and furthermore one can never forget that, in war, the enemy gets to vote." We should have learned that with Iraq, but the NeoCons controlling Bush are not part of the "reality-based community."

The NeoCons aren't too worried. Most have bought homes in Dubai and stashed their money in Swiss bank accounts. The Bush family purchased a 98,842 acre farm in Paraguay. Isn't that where Dr. Josef Mengele and other Nazi expatriates fled after World War II?
____________________________________________
Pepe Escobar
deconstructs Obama's recent speech on foreign policy. The devil is always in the details, he says. Obama seems to favor keeping the current status quo in Iraq if it could be done with a continuing presence of 30,000 "residual" US troops. "Withdrawal it isn't. Is this 'change we can believe in', part of a new 'overarching strategy' - or is this the same status quo as defined by half a century of continuous, many would say imperial, US foreign interference?

In another matter, Joseph Farah of World Net Daily has caused quite a stir with his article on Obama's call for a "
civilian national security force." Holy Stasi, Batman!

In a July 2nd speech in Colorado Springs, Obama said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Is this some kind of national police force as large and powerful as our military? The kind a police state might need? Farah goes on: "Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?

The Obama campaign would not return calls to Farah. Nor,
he reports, have they posted a transcript of the speech on their web site. These lines were excluded from a special transcript he sent to the Wall Street Journal and Denver Post. But the lines are there, about 16:30 into a video of the speech on YouTube.

We don't know exactly what Obama meant by this remark, but it was delivered in a polished, practiced way. A new national police force is just what an emerging fascist government needs. Let's look for a little clarification in the future.

And we know McCain is ready for a hundred year presence and is ready to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

McBama OCain for President!

2 comments:

Michael Pink said...

Porter;

You have one of the best, most informative blogs dealing wiht geo political, national security and real financial world issues on the internet! Keep up the great work!

Michael Q. Pink

Michael Pink said...

Now if I could just spell "with" correctly! (o-: