Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: January 21, 2007 9:46:45 PM PST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Impeachment Is a Just Slap on the Wrist -- HANG the
Bastards for TREASON!
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Was Iraq War a `Blunder' or Was It Treason?
New Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), is
calling President Bush's invasion of Iraq a "stark blunder" and
says that his new scheme to send 21,500 more troops into the mess
he created is just digging the hole deeper.
I wonder though.
It seems ever more likely to me that this whole mess was no blunder
at all.
People are wont to attribute the whole thing to lack of
intelligence on the president's part, and to hubris on the part of
his key advisers. I won't argue that the president is a lightweight
in the intellect department, nor will I dispute that Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and that whole neocon gang have demonstrably
lacked the virtues of reflection and humility. But that said, I
suspect that the real story of the Iraq War is that Bush and his
gang never really cared whether they actually would "win" in Iraq.
In fact, arguably, they didn't really want to win.
What they wanted was a war.
If the war they started had ended quickly with the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein, that would have served their purposes, at least for
the short term. Bush would have emerged from a short invasion and
conquest a national hero, would have handily won re-election in
2004, and would have gone on to a second term as a landslide
victor. But if it went badly, as it has, they figured he would
still come out ahead. He would be a wartime president, and he'd
make full use of that role, expansively misdefining his "commander
in chief" title to imply authority over the Congress and the
courts, to grab power heretofore unheard of for a president.
This, I suspect, was the grand strategy underlying the attack on Iraq.
If I'm right, there may have been method to the madness of not
building up enough troops for the invasion to insure that U.S.
forces could occupy a destroyed Iraq and help it rebuild, method to
the madness of allowing looters free sway to destroy the country's
remaining post-invasion infrastructure, method to the madness,
even, of allowing remnant forces of Hussein's to gather up
stockpiles of weapons and even of high-density explosives, so they
could mount an effective resistance and drag out the conflict.
So many apparently stupid decisions were made by people who should
clearly have been too smart to make them, from leaving hundreds of
tons of high explosives unguarded to cashiering all of Iraq's army
and most of the country's civil service managers, that it boggles
the mind to think that these could have been just dumb ideas or
incompetence. (L. Paul Bremer, for instance, who made the "dumb"
decision about dismantelling the Iraqi army, prior to becoming
Iraq's occupation viceroy, had headed the nation's leading risk
assessment consultancy, and surely knew what all the risks were of
his various decisions.)
I mean, we expect a measure of idiocy from or elected leaders and
their appointees, but not wholesale idiocy!
This disaster has been so colossal, it almost had to have been
orchestrated.
If that's the case, Congress should be taking a hard look at not
just the latest installment of escalation, but at the whole war
project, beginning with the 2002 campaign to get it going.
Certainly throwing 21,500 new troops into the fire makes no sense
whatever. If 140,000 of the best-equipped troops in the world can't
pacify Iraq, 160,000 aren't going to be able to do it either. You
don't need to be a general to figure that out. Even a senator or
representative ought to be able to do it. So clearly Congress
should kill this plan.
Since it's not about "winning" the war, it has to be about
something else. My guess would be it's about either dragging things
out until the end of 2008, so Bush can leave office without having
to say he's sorry. But of course, it could also be about something
even more serious: invading Iran.
We know Bush is trying mightily to provoke Iran. He has illegally
attacked an Iranian consulate in Iraq (an act of war), taking six
protected consular officials there captive. He is sending a second
aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf, and is setting
up Patriot anti-missile missile bases along Iran's western border.
This buildup has all the earmarks of a pre-invasion. All that's
needed now is a pretext -- a real or faked attack on an American
ship, perhaps, ala the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" that launched
America into the Vietnam War.
The way I see it, either way the president is committing treason,
because he is sending American troops off to be killed for no good
reason other than for aggrandizing power he shouldn’t have, and/or
simply covering his own political ass.
Treason is the number one impeachable crime under the Constitution,
and we're at a point where Congress is going to have to act or go
down in history as having acquiesced in the worst presidential
crime in the history of the nation.
