…and this is a 
Bush knew?
Category: Evil • Politics
Posted on: September 5, 2007 9:32 PM, by PZ Myers
You've got to read this account of the intelligence that led to the Iraq war.
On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."
Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.
Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was told that the source that claimed there were was not credible, and he was told that the information coming from a source close to Hussein had been validated.
Bush lied to drag us into a pointless, unjust war.
Bush must be impeached. It doesn't matter how impractical the process seems to be, or how timid the Democrats are. This is an issue of the rule of law: are we to be governed by criminals? Is there to be no punishment for such hideous acts that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people? These men are monsters.
All I'm asking is that Bush and Cheney be thrown out of office in disgrace. If justice were served, there'd also be a subsequent act of extraordinary rendition that delivered them into the hands of the government of Iraq.
Comments
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle
According to the article above the war in Iraq is a money making scam. It describes how various private organizations are getting rich off tax payer dollars and the lives of US soldiers. Pretty disgusting really.
Posted by: Che | September 5, 2007 9:43 PM
That they knew there were no WMDs was obvious from the outset.
Consider: Gulf 1, Saddam had WMDs. On the public record, not denied by anyone. He didn't use them, even when it was clear he was getting hammered. Add to this the often crticised decision by the allied forces not to go after him. Why?
Saddam hit Israel with Scuds, without the WMD payloads they were capable of carrying. He was sending what is, in war-time diplomacy, a blindingly clear message: come after me and I will start wiping out Isreali civilians. It was an obvious, blatant move. There's no secret there. He was preserving himself - reliably the driving motive of almost any dictator. His WMDs were insurance - we couldn't hit him as long as he had them. Similarly, though, he couldn't use them because he knew he'd be a dead man if he did.
So what could we have been thinking to go directly after him several years later? We would have been embarcking on the single course of action that would be guaranteed to provike the very reponse we'd so carefully avoided that last time. How can this possibly make any sense? What had changed?
Because we knew he had nothing left. We hit him at the time we could be most sure that he had no WMDs left. We couldn't hit him if he had them! Our only opportunity came when we were sure he didn't.
Now, it's true that if he'd re-acquired WMDs, we'd have been back where we started, with Saddam largely immune. If that was the reason they'd given, fine. But they chose an obvious lie even before day 1.
This is the obvious, logical conclusion from open sources from before the attack was even launched.
If Saddam had had WMDs, and we knew he had them, then the invasion would have been one of the most stunningly stupid plans in history. Yes, even stupider than the one we had...
Posted by: SmellyTerror | September 5, 2007 9:58 PM
Yes, they should indeed be impeached. I have thought so for some time. I have sent letters and pissed people off making a big deal about it, but before it happens we need some spine in congress. The BushCos are criminals and should:
1) Be impeached
2) Sent to The Hague for war criminal trial
Posted by: afterthought | September 5, 2007 10:00 PM
This Bush is continuing the family project of undermining democracy. His grandfather Prescott Bush was in on a fascist coup attempt ( see for example http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ernest_s_070830_where_s_smedley_butl.htm ). Bush and Cheney deserve to die in prison. Seriously: how is it that we will send away a child molester but salute a child napalmer?
Posted by: Tom Buckner | September 5, 2007 10:02 PM
Old news, years old. A bigger deal, there are a lot of credible rumors on the net that we are going to bomb Iran before end 2008. Bush and Cheney have absolutely nothing to lose, why not.
IMO, this will be a bigger disaster than Iraq. We don't have the military to invade and occupy 70 million Iranian fanatics. Not anymore.
Not saying that the Iranians aren't our opponents and wish us ill. But if we bombed everyone we didn't like, half the world would be gone by now.
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2007 10:11 PM
I never for a second thought he didn't know, but it is nice to have some proof.
The interview on Fresh Air this morning was really something. I'm now afraid that Bush will figure out a way to invalidate every single blue-state's vote in the 2008 election, and will use that as a way to continue to hold the office. I am seriously afraid he's going to hold on to power, even if there's a Democrat landslide. It's a very scary thing he's doing with the office of White House Counsel.
The book is by Charles Savage.
The broadcast.
Posted by: MikeM | September 5, 2007 10:12 PM
Methinks this (the blog entry) is not going to be well received by your e-mailing audience.
While I agree that impeachment, conviction, and removal from office, followed by rendition to a court where their crimes can be brought before a judge and jury is desirable; it is not going to happen. We're simply not going to establish that precedent. It would mean future presidents and politicians would be required to act honorably and with integrity. No one in Washington wants that to happen.
Posted by: Onkel Bob | September 5, 2007 10:17 PM
The rational/ skeptical/ &c commentators here saw thru the charade that kas killed 4K+ soldiers and banko'd the treasury. No wonder that the "true believers" are furious with disbelief in the authoritarian prescription that pays them off.
Posted by: Skeptic8 | September 5, 2007 10:26 PM
I love how the same people who say Bush is the stupidest person who ever lived also think he's a diabolical genius behind the scenes who can somehow overcome the 22nd Amendment and stay in power beyond his term. Come on, you can't have it both ways!
Even if somehow Bush managed to rig it such that there was no election in 2008, or that the results were in turmoil, or whatever, Bush STILL would not remain as President! As of January 20, 2009, Bush will be constitutionally ineligible to be President, so even if a replacement had not validly been chosen, Bush would no longer hold the office. Unfortunately for those who despise the whole ticket, the next eligible Officer in the line of succession would take over, so we would have President Cheney.
The only way Bush can stay in power beyond his term is to actually abolish the constitutional government and take over by force. I'm pretty sure that isn't going to happen. My bet: A peaceful transition of power following a normal election between two non-incumbents in November 2008. Any takers?
Unfortunately for those who wish to depose the Republicans, the Democrats are actually going to be stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton, who, no matter how much people will her to power, is simply unelectable on a national basis. There are about 25 million people in the country (and I know, because I grew up among them) who see her, not as simply unqualified or bad or misguided, but as actually EVIL. These people seriously, LITERALLY think she is the antichrist, an agent of satan on earth, and thus they will show up to vote against her NO MATTER who is on the other side. You can't be elected President in this country with negatives like that.
So unless the Democrats get smart and pick a candidate who can win, we're in for at least another four years of Republican rule.
P.S. You won't see Bush/Cheney impeached (or at least not removed) because the Democrats in Congress are not at all eager to explain to a dumbed-down and lied-to populace how they fell for the lies and voted to give Bush the power to use force in Iraq.
Posted by: cureholder | September 5, 2007 10:29 PM
This treachery hits even harder than readily appears. Reading PZ's post, I immediately thought of an interview with a US Army commander who led troops in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The interviewer pointed out they rolled right over huge arms & ammunition dumps, and those munitions are now being used against the US military and Iraqi civilians by various combatants in Iraq.
So why, the interviewer wanted to know, didn't the commander guard those munitions? Not enough troops, he answered.
Why, then, didn't you destroy the munitions, the interviewer asked. The commander answered, "I didn't want to be the commander who blew up an ammunition dump and released poison gas, killing tens of thousands of civilians."
So the Bush administration's lie about WMDs (to US commanders) continues to pay its fetid, bloody dividends to this day.
Posted by: Wicked Lad | September 5, 2007 10:32 PM
i'm puzzled as to why there's a question at the end of the title to this post.
Posted by: toomanytribbles | September 5, 2007 10:32 PM
Now, now, we all know impeachment is reserved for serious crimes, like blowjobs.
Sending our nation's youth off to Iraq as cannon fodder under false pretenses and triggering the deaths of 100,000 plus Iraqis, Americans and allies *hardly* warrants impeachment.
Get a grip PZ!
Posted by: Robert S. | September 5, 2007 10:33 PM
My question is; what exactly can we do to promote this impeachment process?
I have wanted him impeached for so long; so many of my neighbors and co-workers have also wanted this: what exactly can we do to implement this process?
(Not voiceless, as I have contacted Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, and Ray LaHood on this issue.)
But feeling powerless, as my voiced opinion on this matter has resulted in no action by these politicos.
Shouting for an answer: WHAT CAN WE DO TO INITIATE IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH?
Posted by: cyan | September 5, 2007 10:37 PM
I guess it shouldn't be so surprising that the gullible majority fell for the Bush lies from the start. What is disgusting is that impeachment flew off the table when the Dems made gains in 06. I'm loathing politicians more and more and am wishing I could retreat to the superior position of anarchism once again. Instead, I will continue to vote if only to defend myself from the politicians.
Posted by: Village Green | September 5, 2007 10:44 PM
Of course Emperor Fratboy the Mad knew there were no WMD's. WMD's would have given Iraq a realistic capability for self-defense. Can you imagine a drugstore cowboy like
GWB attacking people who could defend themselves? Cureholder (#9) is right, though. Impeachment ain't gonna happen. In whatever crimes GWB is guilty of, the Democrats are complicit right up to the eyebrows.
Posted by: Not that Louis | September 5, 2007 10:44 PM
Why do only the good presidents get assassinated?
Posted by: Your plastic pal who's fun to be with | September 5, 2007 10:46 PM
harold meyerson makes an argument worth considering that just because impeachment is warranted doesn't mean it's a good idea.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_trouble_with_impeachment
Posted by: marijane | September 5, 2007 10:47 PM
In 2003, a coworker dropped by my office and said, "Steve, I can't believe it, but you were right."
I said, "right about what?"
He said, "Back in 2000, you said you didn't like Bush. You said you were afraid he'd get us into a war with Iraq. I thought you were crazy. You were *right*."
If I, dumbass that I am, could foresee in 2000 that Bush would get us into a war with Iraq, why is it a surprise that diphshit-in-chief did whatever possible, including the banal, simple-minded, easy act of lying to the American public to do so. Of course he fucking lied. Surprised? Yeah, surprised it takes this long for people to figure it out. OF COURSE he lied.
Saddam tried to kill his daddy. The whole fucking thing is a giant fucking adolescent Bible-fueled revenge fantasy. That's what this whole Iraq war is about. Doubtless goaded on by the cadre of war profiteers that Bush has surrounded himself with.
Bush should be indicted for treason, tried, and if convicted, given the usual punishment, which for such acts, if I'm not mistaken, is death by firing squad.
Posted by: SteveC | September 5, 2007 10:50 PM
The more interesting question is whether it is provable Bush knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11. As the administration used the blanket AUMF as its putative "declaration" of war against Iraq, et al., a knowingly inapplicable AUMF presumably means the war was never authorized by Congress.
Posted by: MLE | September 5, 2007 10:54 PM
...
...
PZ, I agree, and thank you for saying it out loud. If Congress doesn't at least MAKE THE ATTEMPT to hold Bush and Cheney (and the rest of the White House crew) accountable via impeachment and prosecution proceedings, America is OVER -- truth and justice are a total myth ... and even the myth will no longer exist.
That's my sense of Justice talking. Now, my sense of HUMOR says we could go a long way toward healing the breach with the rest of the world (and incidentally our trade deficit too) if we remove Bush and Cheney from office and then sell them to the higest nation-bidder afterwards.
Speaking strictly for myself, I'll vote for Democrats in upcoming elections only as long as they fulfill the tacit promise to prosecute and jail these bastards. If Obama or Clinton or whoever gets to the White House and says "We need to put this all behind us and move on," and then pardons this crew, they will instantly become traitors to every American ideal.
The only way to "put this all behind us" and still have a nation left is to put it behind us by investigating in full public view, spotlighting every single criminal act, and prosecuting all those responsible. Every person involved, from Bush on down, should be imprisoned and financially beggared upon conviction.
If it takes ten years to get it done, if it costs a billion dollars, I'm willing to bear the wait, and pay my share of the cost.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | September 5, 2007 10:54 PM
Come on, you can't have it both ways!
yes, you can. just ask Karl Rove.
Bush IS a dumbass (all you have to do is watch unscripted press conferences). that doesn't mean his pupeteers are.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 5, 2007 10:56 PM
Harold Meyerson is a moral coward making excuses to avoid doing what is right.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 5, 2007 10:58 PM
cyan said: WHAT CAN WE DO TO INITIATE IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH?. A few posts above yours, Robert S. said: "we all know impeachment is reserved for serious crimes, like blowjobs". So, cyan, your mission should you choose to accept it...
I wonder if we could coax him into a Minneapolis airport mens room.
Yikes, must scrub brain.
Posted by: AlanWCan | September 5, 2007 11:00 PM
That isn't all. As detailed by Keith Olbermann on Tuesday, Bush says, in his forthcoming authorized biography, that he plans to play out Iraq as long as he can in order to force the GOP candidates for 2008 to climb into bed with his "I refuse to withdraw" policy.
He's declared, openly and without any shame, that he intends to force Iraq as an issue onto his successor. He's playing it for political capital, and has said so.
Treason is about the right word for this.
Posted by: Warren | September 5, 2007 11:11 PM
Uh, no. Cheney's term in office also expires on Jan. 20, so it would fall to the Speaker of the House. (Congress's term in office begins on Jan. 3, and I don't picture the House taking three weeks to choose a Speaker--this isn't the 1840s.)
Posted by: eric | September 5, 2007 11:14 PM
I disagree with PZ here. The problem is Bush knew there *were* WMD in Iraq. After all, Jesus told him. It didn't matter what "intelligence" says, what with their "facts" and all. This is a war of faith.
Posted by: efp | September 5, 2007 11:20 PM
The problem with democracy is that humans are idiots.
The problem with your democracy is that, by enforcing a two party system, you eliminate the protest vote. People are afraid to vote for the people they might like to because they think their vote won't count - which is largely true if they vote outside of the big two. In civilised countries (ok, Australia) our vote stays in play, so if your first choice can't win, it goes to the second, and so on.
You can't vote Hilary because you're worried others won't vote for her. You can't vote Nader becuase you know it takes a vote away from voting *against* the Republicans. With a preferential voting system you could vote Nader -> Hilary -> Obama, and when the masses reject the first two your vote still goes to the third.
You know it makes sense.
How is it democracy if you can't vote for the people you want to vote for? Or, at least, you can't make it count...
Posted by: SmellyTerror | September 5, 2007 11:20 PM
I'm trying to reconcile this with the report on Think Progress this morning that Bush "still believed Saddam possessed WMD" in 1996.
Either he gets more ignorant with time, or he's one of those happy individuals able to hold two contradictory beliefs in his head simultaneously.
Posted by: noncarborundum | September 5, 2007 11:27 PM
It has always seemed to me that the deciding point for Dubya was when Saddam claimed to have won the previous war, based on the fact he was still in power and George H.W. was not. After that it was just a matter of waiting for the first opportunity, regardless of the consequences.
Since I wouldn't expect Dubya to admit this, even in an autobiography, I probably will never know for sure if I'm right.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | September 5, 2007 11:30 PM
Not saying that the Iranians aren't our opponents and wish us ill.
And you know this based on ... what actual evidence?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | September 5, 2007 11:33 PM
Here's another way to look at it: who hurt America more, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, or George W. Bush and Dick Cheney?
The Rosenbergs were convicted of passing nuke secrets to the Soviet Union, though it's now known that Ethel may have been innocent and what the Soviets got from them was far less valuable than the bomb design info they got from Klaus Fuchs, who only got 14 years jail in England. The judge blamed the Rosenbergs for the Korean War (bullcrap, sez me).
Punishment: the electric chair at Sing Sing.
Bush and Cheney stole two elections, maxed out the treasury, drowned New Orleans, took habeas corpus away from us, instituted torture, started a war the U.N. considered illegal, eliminated most of the Bill of Rights, and outed a CIA agent for political gain. That last thing, all by itself, is comparable to what the Rosenbergs were fried for. Oh, by the way: the oil meters in Basra have not been working since 2003, so, according to bartcop.com , these guys may be stealing $100 million a day.
Punishment: riches beyond imagining.
Posted by: Tom Buckner | September 5, 2007 11:37 PM
I'll ask it again, cause nobody answered the first guy-- WHAT CAN YOU DO TO GET THE IMPEACHMENT BALL ROLLING?
Posted by: DaveX | September 5, 2007 11:41 PM
[quote]But if we bombed everyone we didn't like, half the world would be gone by now.[/quote]
And likewise if you bombed everyone who didn't like you, the USA would be alone.
The US has alienated EVERY ally's people. They still have the 'support' of various governments, but almost every voter in every other country wants to see Bush punished. Just a shame the US voters are still retards.
Posted by: Angatyr | September 5, 2007 11:44 PM
It is pretty telling that I am the first to highlight the previous post--- "Why do only the good presidents get assassinated?
Posted by: Your plastic pal who's fun to be with | September 5, 2007 10:46 PM
"
I know that most of you on the left will tolerate such thoughts. Hell you couldn't even get yourselves to have Randi Rhodes thrown off talk radio for her gun "joke".
That is sickening even in your end justifies the means world. Hopefully the Secret Service makes note and goes after "plastic pal". Bush is such a Nazi I am sure they are already on his door step.
Of course the intel that supported WMDS is ignored. Hmm seems the lot of you have your own little power grab. You know it. You would rather destroy this president and give the enemy hope then support them. That is a fact.
It seems if I remember correctly old Sidney worked for President Clinton. I would not exactly call him unbiased. As for the CIA officer I have not noticed a one of you question their motives nor the validity of their contentions. Seems to me many of you are just as driven to meet your ends as you charge President Bush.
You do have to love that as noted "...the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "
It is beautiful to see that Saddam's own representative is deserving of your trust. Again, quite telling.
WMDs or not. Keep fooling yourselves. There WAS more than one reason for war but like children you hold onto the one thing that makes you believe you can wield power. Read Bush's speech for God's sake.
When are the Dems going to pull the troops? When will they cut the funding? You have the power. Again very telling.
Impeachment? Now that would be interesting but again even with power you won't make it happen. I see more spin on the Clinton impeachment as if it was over a blow job. Again the fact that those that visit here let that slide is again proof that you will tolerate misinformation at best and lies at worst.
Enjoy
Posted by: J | September 5, 2007 11:46 PM
Dave, the House of Reps has that power. Ask your local member.
...which is why it won't happen. There are more votes to lose in action than there is to be lost through inaction. All the people wanting impeachment are going to vote for the impeachers anyway. Why give their opponents a weapon?
See also my earlier post re: two party system. When people know they are the only viable option for one side, they have no motivation to push any boundaries.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | September 5, 2007 11:48 PM
Impeachment isn't enough. Bush/Cheney etc. need to be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail (as seen in Oh Brother, Where Art Thou
Posted by: Ken Cope | September 5, 2007 11:50 PM
Oh the big surprise! Anyone who watched Colin Powell's ridiculous performance at the UN knows damn well this was all faked. Evidence he showed was:
1. A flask full of pseudo-anthrax that could have killed oh so many Americans.
2. A square in the Iraqi desert that demonstrated once and for all that WMD's were hidden there.
3. A jet plane contrail that supposedly showed Iraqi ability to spray deadly chemicals on innocent christians in the US of A
4. A truck that was obviously a field factory of nerve gas or worse
And our goddam lawmakers bought this crap! We can only blame ourselves for swallowing this con job. Shame on all of us! Bush is a consummate liar all right. But why did we as a people buy this shit? Don't blame him, blame us!
Posted by: Paul Lurquin | September 5, 2007 11:58 PM
Hey Eric---thanks much for the factual correction on the Cheney v. Speaker of the House thing. Something in the back of my mind was saying that I didn't have it quite right, but I was doing three things at once and just didn't listen to that voice. (When will I learn---ALWAYS listen to the voices in my head!)
So yes, if Bush somehow managed to foil the 2008 election, on January 20, 2009, Nancy Pelosi would become President (assuming she was re-elected by her district and retained as Speaker by her colleagues).
And Cyan, the only way to start impeachment is to get articles of impeachment passed in the House of Representatives, so basically your method would be to contact representatives (and maybe persuade others to do the same) to get the ball rolling.
Posted by: cureholder | September 6, 2007 12:33 AM
Bah humbug! We knew perfectly well that the Iraquis were working on weapons of mass destruction because we sold the wherewithal to them -- and we have the receipts to prove it.
Wuffencucoo
Posted by: Max ben-Aaron | September 6, 2007 12:35 AM
But why did we as a people buy this shit?
It was on TV. Nobody'd lie on TV, would they? That'd be wrong.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 6, 2007 12:42 AM
You guys can have him back anytime you like. Sydney is like a bit prison cell from what I see in the media.
Posted by: Brian | September 6, 2007 12:55 AM
Wow, PZ - are you way behind the curve on this one.
Posted by: CJ | September 6, 2007 12:58 AM
*yawn*
I find it interesting that the Republicans wanted to go after Clinton at all costs regardless of consequences and now we find that PZ and friends want to go after Bush at all costs regardless of consequences. Please - we knew there were no WNDs and that this was just a revenge deal when it happened ... and now this is news to anyone????? Impeaching Bush will do -nothing- ... give it up ... its time to look forward to the next admin ... but its doubtful that you will ...
wow... this just bloody amazes me....
Posted by: yoshi | September 6, 2007 1:00 AM
Impeaching Bush will do -nothing-
trying and convicting a murderer does nothing.
putting a car thief in jail does nothing.
shall i go on, or are you ready to concede that your statement might not be all that well thought out?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 6, 2007 1:11 AM
...OTOH, I rather think that much of Congress has come to the same erroneous conclusion you have, with just as much thought put into it.
I guess we should just give up on the idea of a nation of law, eh?
hell, we violate our own laws all the time anyway.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 6, 2007 1:14 AM
I agree with the above stated Bush and Chaney et al are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors that are too numerous to list here but I am sure that a list could be drawn up in short order. The question of impeachment may not be acceptable to enough of the Washington Politicians to be on the table not that it should not be. I think it was a big mistake not to have Impeached Nixon I think it would have been good for the country then and now. The question I have is this do we as a country have the courage to stand up when it becomes clear that the election has been stolen again? Can we have an Orange Revolution of our own or will we just go along and make some feeble protest and go home and bitch to our friends and families.
Posted by: uncle frogy | September 6, 2007 1:25 AM
Can we have an Orange Revolution of our own or will we just go along and make some feeble protest and go home and bitch to our friends and families.
I'll bet a case of scotch on the latter.
doomed I tells ya.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 6, 2007 1:32 AM
I think that PZ might be using the word "knew" in the wrong sense, i.e., the sense in which most normal people understand it.
For most of us, "was informed of a fact, backed by evidence and expert opinion" = "knew", or "accepted the body of evidence and expert opinion as the best available approximation to the truth". A true ideologue doesn't use that sort of thought process.
I can think of another national leader who, when he was provided with a detailed report based on the best available intelligence, which showed that a nation he was at war with was recovering from the economic damage inflicted by that war more rapidly than had been expected, simply scribbled "this cannot be" on the cover page and thought no more about it.
The ability of the True Believer to ignore all evidence which contradicts his chosen beliefs should never be misunderestimated.
In fact, I really wich Ambrose Bierce were still around, because I've got a new entry for the Devil's Dictionary:
IDEOLOGY: n. A type of vaccination which confers complete immunity against empirical evidence.
Posted by: Ktesibios | September 6, 2007 1:50 AM
Ah, the Orange Revolution... gee, I wonder who we could get to sponsor one here? Viktor Yushchenko has his hands full at the moment, and so cannot return the favor.
Whatever happens to BushCo, the last word on the subject will undoubtedly be "Pardon", and in fifteen years he'll show up as an Elder Statesman and start arbitrating between Major League Baseball and the Umpires Union.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 6, 2007 2:11 AM
That sounds like a kind of prayer to me.
There's no deity or messiah or brash young upstart Senator who could come down and impeach Bush or make everything all right in 2009. Bringing these criminals to justice and safeguarding against a recurrence like this would require lots of people to get out of their comfort zones, forgoing their favorite TV episodes or blogs in favor of writing letters and making calls, meeting and organizing, protesting, maybe risking arrest in civil disobedience, etc. We can also give money and otherwise support candidates who-
sorry, gotta go, Battlestar Galactica just came on!
Posted by: Pete | September 6, 2007 2:46 AM
Dishonesty aside, Dubya's "possession of WMDs = dangerous" conclusion was a non-sequitur to begin with.
Even if Saddam DID have WMDs, that wouldn't necessarily make him a threat. We have WMDs, and we're not a threat (I hope). Besides, Saddam would have known from his experience in the Gulf War that if he was going to attack another country with whatever means, the US would fly in there and kick his ass. You think Dubya, as the son of the Commander in Chief during that earlier war, would have figured that out.
Posted by: Brandon P. | September 6, 2007 2:54 AM
In addition to the obvious (the loss of both American and Iraqi lives, there is a real tragedy in the war: it has not made the US, or the world in general, any safer. If anything, it has handed the terrorists a rallying point to recruit new followers and get more funding.
Post-9/11, the US had the sympathy of the world (well, most of it), and there was a true willingness to join together to diminish the threat of terrorism. Through its total disregard for the importance of "soft power", the Bush administration squandered its greatest asset. (Anybody remember "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists"?)
The result? Thousands dead, stronger terrorists, a weaker USA with fewer degrees of freedom in international policy and a more insecure world for us all.
Posted by: Thinker | September 6, 2007 3:02 AM
Right, and so the fatal flaw of neoconservative foreign policy is revealed: Militaristic solutions pressed upon unwilling populations yields (at best) Pax Romana.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 6, 2007 3:12 AM
Regarding the topic of the post, US could do regain measures of respect and perhaps get what US citizens here wants by pushing for US joining the International Criminal Court (ICC).
There are more where that comes from. US could regulate laws so another president can't temporarily circumvent the Geneva conventions. It could also remove the reservation in the 4th convention which circumvent local law for civilians in occupied nations to be able to summarily e_x_e_c_u_t_e them. Et cetera.
Those exceptions were somewhat acceptable as long as a democratic nation as US behaved responsibly. Now they are scaring people - or at least, they should scare us.
[It could also help if US spam filters didn't block e_x_e_c_u_t_e or k_i_l_l. :-P]
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | September 6, 2007 4:23 AM
"There WAS more than one reason for war but like children you hold onto the one thing that makes you believe you can wield power."
My irony meter just exploded.
But that's what you gotta love about people like "J". No matter how many times they are discredited and disgraced they stick to their guns. No WMD's? No problem. Exaggerated or outright fraudulent ties to Al Queida? You bet your ass. But the war was worth it! Sadaam, terrorists.....erp....THE SURGE IS WORKING!
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 6, 2007 4:37 AM
Impeachment is necessary and urgently needed -- before this administration has the time to try to hold off or prevent impeachment proceedings by starting a disasterous war with Iran.
I'm glad you've brought this up, and I hope some people in the government are listening. I wrote about the need for impeachment myself here: Where have all the checks and balances gone?
Posted by: C. L. Hanson | September 6, 2007 5:10 AM
According to Robert Draper, Bush *knew* until at least 2006 that Saddam had WMD.
Posted by: WJZ | September 6, 2007 6:30 AM
J - #34
I don't know you so I won't speak ill of you. I will make some observations:
* Left is a political term. People Left and Right politically can have a Right Wing Authoritian (RWA) bent - a phychological not a political designation. RWA's distort and/or ignore facts to suit their mental models of things. People Left and Right can NOT be RWAers too.
* Bush is a RWA in my opinion AND he is a RWA Leader who also is a true believer in "higher powers." Doesn't get any more dangerous. You may disagree but that is your opinion -- I have mine -- it comes from the waste, death, disruption, and other actions I see.
* Liberals (people not RWA's - NOT meant Left or Right politically) have been shown in many studies to be MUCH more even-handed than RWA's.... they judge and punish pretty much on the facts and regardless of association with those they judge. This is what I understand from studies, but it is said by me so my opinion.
* I suspect people here are blowing off steam and exaggerating their statements for effect. I personally cring at statements like the one you referenced -- but I also feel the hyberbole intended to make a point.
* Bush and this war and his actions and results and management and faith-based decisions etc. have FACTUALLY been a disaster for us and sadly for many many innocents elsewhere. You may not see it ... but frankly it is so obvious to me.
* I think Bill Clinton was an asshole in many many ways.. frankly he made me want to vomit at times.. BUT he held the post and did the job for us orders of magnitude better than Bush has. To compare the transgressions of the personally flawed political Clinton to Bush's and equate them evenly is mindboggling to me.
* The Intel on WMD was heavily toward "doesn't have" ... the inspectors per se were singing "doubt it.. wait .. no don't do it" Only a criminal and/or insane person would gamble lives and treasure on iffy evidence for NO immediate good reason like Bush did. No sane and reasonable person would allow a mistake to get so out of hand like Bush did. You may feel differently but agaion it boggles my mind.
* Bush now has the percent of the population behind him that is strongly RWA. Let's hope the saner heads among us prevail over them.
Again - I am an equal opportunity critic and judge. I would bet most of the readers of this blog are also when the rubber meets the road. I don't like unworthy (in civilized discussions) statements. However that does not alter the fact that Bush is a VERY dangerous person who has done damage to us on a number of fronts and to repair his damge will take more will, time, patience, understyanding, treasure, rightgeousness, integrity, and ability than perhaps we can muster up in W DC. It is sad and scarey to those of us that can see reality. My opinion ..
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | September 6, 2007 6:33 AM
Yes I am am serious need of using spell check --OK .. even I say "WOW -- you ever go to school!?" Pardon me good people.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | September 6, 2007 6:39 AM
Confirmed by the hearsay account of an unnamed source from an agency with an ax to grind.
I believe it.
Posted by: I. M. Stupid | September 6, 2007 7:07 AM
I don't think so. Fearless Flightsuit goes to church a lot less often than one might think.
Do you really believe he lies to everyone except the Religious Wrong? Don't you think he considers them useful idiots?
After all, he said he had stopped drinking, too. Remember the show he pulled on his birthday last year? He couldn't walk straight anymore.
In 1996. That's when he still had some. He got rid of them between 1998 and 2002.
For the record, I won't. I want to hear from Captain Unelected's own mouth what he knew and when he knew it.
Yeah, like the overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design.
"The enemy", eh?
Well, who has done greater damage to the USA? The Busheviki or Saddam?
Ever got the idea that there might be such a thing as a monumental fight of evil against evil?
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 6, 2007 7:20 AM
Re: #23
Tim Kreider had the plan ready in 2004.
Posted by: kai | September 6, 2007 8:00 AM
"impeachment will do nothing"
Maybe yes, maybe no... but, if Bush is guilty of lying this country into a war and causing the needless deaths of over 3,000 US soldiers and over 150,00 Iraqis, then he should be held accountable.
You seem to forget that there is a sacred trust between the government and its' citizens that allows the government to call/ask its citizens to defend, fight and perhaps die for this country. The cause, however, have to be valid and noble.
How can any US citizen not be skeptical of any future Presidents reason to go to war?
How is future Presidents going to be able to honestly ask US citizens to fight and die for this country in light of this?
That sacred trust has been broken by the Bush administration for his own personal agenda.
Bush et al. have to be held accountable so something like this can never again be perpetrated on the American people.
This is not Democrat vs. Republican issue...It's a Right vs. Wrong issue.
Posted by: Steverino | September 6, 2007 8:16 AM
Following on from ConcernedJoe's comment about Right Wing Authoritarianism, this book is the most comprehensive study of RWA psychology. It's enlightening.
Posted by: MH | September 6, 2007 8:21 AM
I spent some time over at Project Censored (www.projectcensored.org). In addition to some pretty alarming content about how the corporate media has been taken in by the bushies, someone wrote an article about impeachment. They claim that if Bush/Cheney were impeached, the resulting evidence disclosures would bring down the government, since it is so complicitous. That's why the Dems aren't interested in impeachment. More alarming is the Blackwater/Haliburton connection. This mercenary army is being funded by Cheney's old group (perhaps by some of that Basra oil money?), and has essentially free rein in Iraq, the best weapons, armor, etc. They even have their own satellites. One wonders if we're being set up for a coup, since an army of this type isn't subject to civilian (Congressional) control.
SG
Posted by: Science Goddess | September 6, 2007 8:33 AM
At this point I'd settle for punitive damages of $1 Trillion to cover the cost of his little pet war. I know he could never pay it, but it would be nice to sell his estate and garnish his wages all the way down to minimum wage.
Posted by: No One of Consequence | September 6, 2007 8:55 AM
How is future Presidents going to be able to honestly ask US citizens to fight and die for this country in light of this?
You're perhaps forgetting that the people who are actually doing the fighting and dying...well, we don't get a choice.
By taking the oath to safeguard your 'freedom,' we give up a few things for the duration that we're in uniform. One of those is the right to argue about where, when, and against whom we get deployed (yes yes...presuming the order to go kill people is lawful....different, although tangentially relevant, discussion). George doesn't ask...he orders...we go. The question of whether or not Joe Snuffy soldier gets to make the call about whether a given deployment order, issued from on high, is lawful or unlawful hasn't been decided. Until it is decided, the situation in which we currently live is: he orders...we go.
So, as it stands right now, that's our job...to kick in the doors.
Your job (the non-military populace) is to make sure we're kicking in doors you can live with. That is to say, it is your job to determine the lawfulness of the deployment orders (or, as is much more common, to make up your minds as to whether or not you want us to be killing this particular group of poor people versus some other group of poor people). Contrary to what most Republicans will tell you, it is not unpatriotic to question conflicts. It is your job to do so. Questioning the war doesn't mean you're not supporting the troops, whatever the Hell that actually means on the ground (for me, it has very little to do with fucking little yellow ribbon magnets). If a soldier tells you you're not being patriotic because you question the war, he or she is misunderstanding your job...and is, in my opinion, flat out wrong. Our morale is our fucking problem. The 'right or wrong' of the conflict is yours. Questioning means sitting down and making a decision, hopefully based on reasoned analysis, as to whether or not you are for or against said conflict (I personally hope most of age citizens would engage in this exercise). And one would of course hope the analysis would be based on something other than just CNN or Faux News...but I would also hope college freshman could do math...so whatever.
I also don't think that, if you decide your against a conflict, putting yourself through the amazing sacrifice of attending a couple of hour-long war protests a day or two before we start the door-kicking is really going to do much. People turn a bit of a baleful eye toward Cindy Sheehan, but you cannot really say she didn't put her money where her mouth was.
Posted by: Josh | September 6, 2007 9:06 AM
More alarming is the Blackwater/Haliburton connection. ...One wonders if we're being set up for a coup, since an army of this type isn't subject to civilian (Congressional) control.
We kicked this one around over on Dispatches from the Culture Wars. I strongly maintain that Blackwater is not and could never be powerful enough to succeed in a coup attempt. There's too many current and former military personnel who take their oaths "to protect and defend the Constitution" very, very seriously. Blackwater could, perhaps, sow terror for awhile, which could result in anarchy. To govern, though, they have to come out in the open. Even if the plotters tried to get the real military involved, it wouldn't work. It doesn't take very many patriots in each unit to make the unit unreliable for supporting treason, and that would make the commanders very leery of getting involved in the first place.
Posted by: BobApril | September 6, 2007 9:13 AM
This is all nonsense. I happen to enjoy our standard of living in the US and I know it depends on a steady cheap source of energy, mostly in the form of oil. It's our leader's jobs to go get resources. That's what leaders do, and have done throughout human history. That's what Bush/Cheney did.
Yes, they fit the WMD data to fit the policy of invasion and put on a show at the UN to skirt nonaggression treaties that prevent us from doing what we did. I don't hear a lot of complaint from the rest of the world. Saddam had gone off his rocker and was threatening the stability of the world's economy. 9/11 provided perfect cover to act.
David Frum makes the point that the success of the western global economy has depended on America's steady hand since (at least) 1945. That steady hand has enriched the top 1 billion people on the planet. That steady hand can extend that wealth to the rest of the world. But we simply cannot hand over control of the Middle East to fanatics that would pull us all down.
Posted by: TW | September 6, 2007 9:20 AM
BobApril,
There will be no military coup. Say what you will about our current government (if it's obscene, you're probably right) but the military will not be used to take over the US. I served in the Marines not that long ago, and I can assure you that while you MIGHT be able to find 10 or 15 per cent of them willing to buy into some trumped up argument that a coup would be necessary to save the union or some other bullshit, it takes alot more that than paltry number, even if there were generals involved. If you think you could get the armed forces to follow orders to take over this country, you don't understand the military or the people serving in it very well. There are plenty of other things to worry about relating to our country and world, but this thankfully isn't one of them.
Posted by: Dahan | September 6, 2007 9:29 AM
TW,
"I happen to enjoy our standard of living in the US and I know it depends on a steady cheap source of energy, mostly in the form of oil. It's our leader's jobs to go get resources. That's what leaders do"
Well, you certainly lack any kind of imagination don't you? Let me explain.
A truly great leader at the time of 9/11 would have used the worldwide and national compassion and backing to set into play a way for us (the world, not just the United States) to come up with new solutions to energy that would make fossil fuels irrelevant. It would have been extremely expensive, perhaps a couple trillion dollars, but think of the power change in the Middle East, etc. Take away the astronomical money being made by a relative few there, and a lot of the violence goes away too. Except for the religious type.
Now a truly terrible leader would have done exactly what Bush did, lie to his people, spend a trillion or more dollars on a war (not to mention the troops and civilians lost) all for resources which everyone knows won't last forever by any means. Add into that the alienating most of the world and creating more terrorists, and you have a magnificently botched job.
You see, you have to be able to think a little deeper than that. You aren't expecting enough from your leaders.
Posted by: Dahan | September 6, 2007 9:41 AM
The interesting thing isn't the knowledge of the lack of WMD. That has been known for years, at least since the British pre-war intelligence reports were leaked. What was that, 2003?
What is interesting is that the balance of power among the elite has shifted. Where before we got pure Pravda from the mainstream press (exepting Knight-Ridder to some extent), some group or groups with ownership interests has decided it's time to start revealing this information to the population at large.
To those who say that impeachment "will do nothing". Well, we got into this mess because the country wasn't aggressive enough with Nixon. We didn't eliminate his subordinates from the political process. We forgave the lackeys, including Cheney and Rumsfeld. If we don't impeach, these same bastards (through younger lackeys today) will come back to bite us again in ten to twenty years. And just as they're goals have expanded since Nixon, next time they'll be even worse, even more authoritarian and anti-constitutionalist.
Do you want that for your later years? Do you want that for your kids?
Posted by: frog | September 6, 2007 10:05 AM