Why Not Impeachment?

After the new disclosure that the Bush administration misled Congress and the public about its secret torture policies, one question that begs to be asked is: why not impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, finally? For the past year, Democratic leaders have ruled the question "off the table," but their strategy of seeking bipartisanship to end the Iraq War obviously has failed. So, the hard choice may be either to start impeachment proceedings or accept that the United States is no longer a Republic governed by the rule of law.

Read More...Why Not Impeachment?

Sphere: Related Content

George W. Bush's suicidal statecraft

By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Tribune Media Services International

Sixty years ago, Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental "A Study of History," that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal statecraft."
Sadly for President George W. Bush's place in history but - much more important - ominously for America's future, it has lately seemed as if that adroit phrase might be applicable to the policies pursued by the United States since the cataclysm of 9/11.

Flaying away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming "I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.
But it need not be so.
A real course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly divided and troubled nation.
In a bipartisan setting, it would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out - perhaps even as early as next year.
And the sooner the United States leaves, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly prevail.
With a foreign policy based on bipartisanship and with Iraq behind us, it would also be easier to shape a wider regional policy that constructively focuses on Iran and on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while restoring the legitimacy of America's global role.

**If you read the entire article you will see that it was written in October 2005 yet it could have been written just today, very interesting reading**

Read More...George W. Bush's suicidal statecraft

Sphere: Related Content

Judge rules Bush can’t block presidential records.

Today, a federal judge invalidated part of a 2001 order by President Bush allowing former presidents to review executive documents before they can be released under open records laws.”
The AP reports

Source: Think Progress

Related Article: Executive Order 13233

Veiled Presidential records
Executive Order 13233 limits access to the records of former U.S. Presidents:
"...reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisers, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases..."

Sphere: Related Content

Saddam was ready to leave Iraq

Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq. If verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted.

Read More...Saddam asked Bush for $1bn to go into exile
Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.
Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).
The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.
The White House refused to comment on the report last night.
Blanca DeBree said...
No one loves the troops better than the President.
After all, according to a new memo leaked by El Pais, the Decider loves the troops so much that he decided to give them an early Christmas present in 2003 by invading Iraq, even though for the low cost of $1 billion, we could have been rid of Saddam Hussein and his sons permanently.
And our glorious Commander Guy loves the troops so much, he insists that we not coddle them with adequate armor or equipment in Iraq.
He knows nothing says you don't have faith in the ability of the troops to succeed than giving them fancy equipment, which pampers them.
And when, and if, they come home, he knows that giving them mental and physical health care would only make them feel helpless.
He knows that tough love is the best love.
Yes, these troops have never known a better friend than our Commander Guy.
And considering the military strongly supported him in 2000 and 2004 and helped get him elected, they've gotten the President they deserve.

Sphere: Related Content

Al-Qaeda's Goal: See for Yourself

One of George W. Bush's key arguments for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely is that al-Qaeda wants to "drive us out." But U.S. intelligence has intercepted an internal al-Qaeda communique that says almost the exact opposite.
The letter written by senior al-Qaeda operative Atiyah Abd al-Rahman states that "prolonging the war is in our interest." Yet, President Bush is rarely challenged when he asserts the opposite, and few members of Congress seem aware of the Atiyah letter, which was translated and analyzed by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.
To help clarify this issue, we have posted the relevant excerpt at http://www.consortiumnews.com/prolongingwar.pdf as well as the entire letter at http://www.consortiumnews.com/atiyah-letter.pdf (the relevant excerpt is at the top of page 17).

For the fuller context of this letter, you can go to Consortiumnews.com's "Gen. Petraeus & the 'Central Front' Myth" or see the new book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.
By e-mailing this item to your congressional representative or to someone you know at a news organization, you can help spread the word on this important reality -- that "prolonging" the U.S. military occupation of Iraq is just what al-Qaeda's leadership wants.

Sphere: Related Content

Mass Graves Dug to Deal With Death Toll

The largest morgue in Diyala province is overflowing daily. Officials told IPS they have had to dig mass graves to dispose of bodies.
TVNL Comment:
There you go. Now George W. Bush joins the ranks of world's despots who have the term "mass graves" associated with them!

Read More...

Sphere: Related Content

Bush's Mafia Whacks the Republic

Bush's Mafia Whacks the Republic
By Robert Parry
June 20, 2007

Over the past half dozen years, George W. Bush has shifted the United States from its tradition as a Republic with inalienable rights into a new-age authoritarian state run more like the Mafia. Not only does Bush now assert his right to snatch people off the street and jail them without trial, but he reportedly has dispatched assassins around the world to eliminate perceived enemies. Bush also continues to purge honest officials who won't respect his omerta code of silence.
In years to come, historians may look back on U.S. press coverage of George W. Bush’s presidency and wonder why there was not a single front-page story announcing one of the most monumental events of mankind’s modern era – the death of the American Republic and the elimination of the “unalienable rights” pledged to “posterity” by the Founders.

Sphere: Related Content

What kind of Guy is Bush anyway?

Once again, George W opened his mouth and all sorts of funny, confusing, idiotic stuff came flying out.

I’m still not sure if he’s “A” commander guy, or “The” commander guy, but does it really make any difference after all? I mean listening to this so-called Yale graduate string two sentences together is as painful as chewing on a ball of tin foil. So it makes no difference to me what he calls himself, because it’s usually confusing not only to us, but him as well.

I can only wonder what the history books will say about George W. Bush. Let’s take a few wild guesses, shall we?

George W. Bush….

“A” President, or “The” President?

“A” War Mongerer, or “The” War Mongerer?

“A” incompetent President, or “The” incompetent President?

Or my personal favorite: “A” bad President, or “The” bad President?

Sphere: Related Content

Evidence Mounts That Bush Is at Center of Prosecutor Purge

So why are the Bushies being so squirrely about the congressional investigation into the prosecutor purge? Why did Karl Rove delete months worth of secret emails? Why did it take A.G. Alberto Gonzales two weeks to memorize his testimony in the matter? Why did Monica Goodling, a Christian nationalist mole in the Justice Dept., say she would plead the Fifth out of fear she might be forced to lie under oath?

The answer: George W. Bush.

Unlike the Scooter Libby scandal, where the wagons were circled to protect Vice Pres. Cheney, it appears that Dear Leader himself is at the center of the prosecutor purge.

On Sunday, the Albequerque Journal reported that the president may have personally added the name of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico to the purge list at the behest of Sen. Pete Domenici, the state’s senior Republican:

Related Story: Recently Released E-Mails Show Attorney General's Involvement in Attorney Firing Talks

Gonzales has insisted he left those decisions to his staff, but ABC News has learned he was so concerned about U.S. attorney Carol Lam's lackluster record on immigration enforcement in San Diego that he supported firing her months before she was dismissed, according to a newly released e-mail from his former chief of staff.

Update:
Immunity for Ex-Gonzales Aide WeighedPotential Witness's Role in Firings Cited

By Paul Kane

washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 18, 2007; Page A08

The confrontation between Congress and the administration over the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys escalated again yesterday as Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee said they are weighing an offer of immunity to a potential key witness in the investigation.

At the same time, the Republican National Committee yesterday turned down congressional demands that it turn over e-mails related to the dismissals, angering House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).

Sphere: Related Content

Bush and His Follies!

Sphere: Related Content

Family Affair: the Bushes and the Bin Ladens

Some interesting reading about the connections between these two families, a little food for thought from me to you!

Sphere: Related Content

A politician's reaction to dissent is often the true test of a commitment to democracy. Great leaders not only tolerate criticism, but welcome disagre

Certainly, no one who truly cares about democracy favors punishing critics and demonizing dissenters. But just such hostility has been the calling card of George W. Bush and his backers over the past five years as they have subjected public critics to vilification, ridicule and retaliation. Rather than welcome contrary opinions and use them to refine his own thinking, Bush operates from the premise that his “gut” judgments are right and all they require is that the American people get in line behind him.
Bush then views any continued criticism as evidence of disloyalty. While Bush will tolerate people voicing disagreement, he feels they should pay a steep price, exacted by Bush’s loyalists inside and outside the government.
So, when Bush’s supporters malign his critics as “traitors” and spit out other hate-filled expressions bordering on exhortations to violence, Bush sees no obligation to rein in the intimidating rhetoric.
Instead, Bush almost seems to relish the punishments meted out to Americans who dissent.
One more Freedom lost thanks to the Bush Administration!

Sphere: Related Content

Bush Bamboozles Democrats Again

As Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates joins in baiting Iraq War critics for supposedly aiding the enemy, the Democrats have been taught once more the value of handing a bipartisan olive branch to George W. Bush.
In December, the “conventional wisdom” was that Bush would bend to the troop-drawdown recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and that Gates – as a former member of the ISG – would guide the President toward disengagement from Iraq.
Definition of insanity-doing the same thing and expecting a different result! What has to happen before we smarten up?

Sphere: Related Content

RONALD V. DELLUMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GEORGE BUSH, Defendant

This is a lawsuit by a number of members of Congress n1 who request an injunction directed to the President of the United States to prevent him from initiating an offensive attack against Iraq without first securing a declaration of war or other explicit congressional authorization for such action.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree!

Sphere: Related Content

Bush's 'Global War on Radicals'

By Robert ParryDecember 23, 2006

The United States will never win the “war on terror,” in part, because George W. Bush keeps applying elastic definitions to the enemy, most recently expanding the conflict into a war against Muslim “radicals and extremists.”
With almost no notice in Official Washington, Bush has inserted this new standard for judging who’s an enemy as he lays the groundwork for a wider conflict in the Middle East and a potentially endless world war against many of the planet’s one billion adherents to Islam.
Indeed, it could be argued that the “war on terror” has now morphed into the “war on radicals,” allowing Bush to add the likes of Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and the leaders of Syria and Iran to his lengthening international enemies list.

As I read this little ditty I found I couldn't agree more! I think Mr. Bush is on a huge Power Trip that is not only going to cost thousands of lives but is going to cost this Country all credibility! Bush has either become a Megalomaniac or a nut bag!

Sphere: Related Content

Operation: Save Bush's Legacy

Ignoring the results of the Nov. 7 election and the advice of U.S. generals, George W. Bush appears set on escalating the Iraq War by sending in about 20,000 more U.S. soldiers. Signaling his determination to "surge" the troops, Bush also is purging military brass who disagree with his judgment. But what's less clear is whether Bush really thinks the troop hike can "win" the war or if he is trading American lives to keep the eventual defeat off his record -- and save his legacy. January 3, 2007
If press reports are correct – that George W. Bush will approve a troop “surge” in Iraq of 17,000 to 20,000 soldiers – the follow-up question must be whether the escalation will do anything but get more Americans and Iraqis killed while only forestalling the defeat of Bush’s war policy.

Sphere: Related Content

A Very Dangerous New Year
Political pressures on George W. Bush make the first few months of 2007 a very dangerous time for an escalation of war in the Middle East. Intelligence sources say Bush -- along with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- are weighing the possibility of Israeli-led attacks on Syria and Iran, with the United States providing logistical back-up. In this view, the proposed "surge" of U.S. troops to Iraq and the dispatch of a second aircraft carrier task force to Iranian waters are part of the plan. December 21, 2006 http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/122006.html
All three leaders could salvage their reputations if a wider war broke out in the Middle East and then broke in their favor.This, ladies and gentlemen is called an agenda and the only reason we are still in Iraq! IMOSHO!

Sphere: Related Content

Now This is Funny!!

.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush defends Iraq strategy delay

Bush defends Iraq strategy delay

Mr Bush admitted the level of violence in Iraq had been "horrific"US President George W Bush has said he will not be rushed into deciding how to change his Iraq policy.
He said he was receiving advice, but would reject implementing "ideas that would lead to defeat" - such as "leaving before the job is done".
A high-level review published last week said combat troops could be withdrawn from Iraq by early 2008.
Mr Bush had been due to announce a new strategy next week, but his speech will not now be made until January.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6177903.stm

"If we lose our nerve, if we're not steadfast in our determination to help the Iraqi government succeed, we will be handing Iraq over to an enemy that would do us harm"
President Bush

Supposedly the President knows better then the Study Group? Is he more interested in saving face,than saving lives? An enemy who will do us harm? Is he talking about Iraq or Himself...Hmmmmm?

Sphere: Related Content

DEJAVU?

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1524.shtml
Commentary
Last Updated: Dec 13th, 2006 - 22:59:55

Israel’s ill-kept secret is finally official

By Linda S. HeardOnline Journal Contributing WriterDec

Israelis are stunned. The incoming US Defense Secretary Robert Gates actually admitted their country has . . . wait for it . . . a nuclear arsenal. What a surprise! Israeli columnists are falling over themselves penning analyses as to the reasons behind Gates’ disclosure that was tantamount to pointing out a giant wart on the tip of a friend’s nose.
Ze’ev Schiff, writing in Ha’aretz, blames Gates for ending “Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity in one fell swoop” even though, he adds, “Washington has always supported this policy.” Naturally Schiff indulges in the fleeting thought that Gates could be shock, horror anti-Israel. After all what other reason could there be for his truth saying during his Senate confirmation hearing?

OMG!! What is wrong with this picture?? Shades of Iraq? Bush has lost his mind..(if he ever had one that is!)

Sphere: Related Content