Impeach Bush

Even Barron's wants him impeached:

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.

Baby steps

George "I'm a War president" Bush made history yesterday with the following statement:

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility."

-- George W. Bush, September 13, 2005

This may be the only time that he has even hinted at making a mistake. I won't count his attempt to dodge the question during a presidential debate when he answered, "Now, you ask what mistakes -- I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them." And while he said yesterday, "I take responsibility," look at the words that precede it. First he tries to spread the blame to "all levels of government," and then he qualifies his statement by adding, "to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right."

I wonder what Bush's inquiry into "what went right and what didn't go right", headed by Bush himself, will find. I bet anything that falls into the "what didn't go right" category will be things that the state and local governments did or didn't do. Maybe he will admit that the appointment of Michael Brown to head FEMA was one of those mistakes that he hinted at during the debate.

But I applaud the War President for taking responsibility. In the years to come he will have to take responsibility for many more things. When he and Rummy are sitting before the War Crimes Tribunal they will have to answer charges of genocide that they directed in Fallujah. They bombed the city and cut off power and supplies, the US bombed hospitals and mosques, they allowed women and children to leave the city-- but not men--and then gave orders to shoot and kill men whether they were armed or not. That sounds like genocide to me--even if the United States did it.

Will the War President take responsibility for violating the Article 147 of Geneva Convention(IV)(among others).

Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Anyhow, I'm proud of you Georgie. You still have to work on it, but you are are making baby steps.

Reality Check

It has been two years since Bush invaded Iraq with the Shock & Awe^TM Show so it is time for a reality check.

• 1520 US military deaths


• 176 "Coalition" deaths


• 11,220 US wounded in action


• 212 foreign contractors killed in Iraq


• 24 journalists killed, at least six of them killed by US military


• thousands and thousands of dead Iraqi civilians


• American taxpayers have paid over $156 Billion so far


• No WMD


• No link between Iraq and 9/11


• There is a link between Iraqi Oil and Bush's War

File under: Politics, Iraq, War

Dumbgirl is hot

In her post entitled "Democracy & Freedom Are On the March!!" Dumbgirl regurgitated some Bush Administration propaganda about the United States making the world safe for democracy or something. One of her followers commented about the report in The Lancet that found 100,000 Iraqi civilians died because of American intervention in Iraq. I tried to correct her mistaken interpretation of the study; Dumbgirl promptly deleted my comment and banned my ip.

I tried again with another comment on the topic of Dumbgirl accepting public assistance in the past and her belief that she should not have her tax dollars used to pay for abortions.

All women should receive free pre-natal care, free births, and receive a stipend to care for the baby once it is born and free health care for children.

Amy, do (you) approve of your tax dollars going to pay for breast augmentations and liposuction for military people?
see: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?040726ta_talk_schaler
Abortion maybe abhorrent to you but breast augmentation and liposuction are abhorrent to me. Why should I pay for military women to have bigger boobs?

March 9, 2005 | Rob

Dumbgirl responded:

Rob,

I will address you once, then never again.

As for the military breast augmentations, keep in mind that they are not all for vanity reasons. Medical care in the military has in the past covered masectamies (sic) for removal of the breast due to cancer and tumors, but not an implant to recover the form. If you think that these "boob jobs" are sickening, that's on you, but for the military to cosmetically replace the breast taken through surgery is very humane. As for doing it for vanity purposes, I am opposed to this. It is unnecessary and frivolous. However, being the anti-conservative that you are I'd think you'd 1) like seeing "bigger boobs" and 2) believed in bigger (pardon the pun) government.

So because I am liberal, or as she says "anti-conservative", that means that I like seeing "bigger boobs"? Actually I think big plastic breasts are as disgusting as abortions, but I am not going to try to pass laws or amend the Constitution to stop women from doing either.

And I'm for "bigger government"? Bigger than Dubya's government and his record budget deficit? I'm for a big government in the right places. If by big government she means keeping people out of poverty or making sure that people get health care and stuff like that, then okay, I'm for big government. If she means filling up the prisons with non-violent drug offenders and building a missile defense system, then no.

She goes on:

Finally, I can only assume you bypass my IP bans because you need to hear what I have to say. I am being sincere when I suggest you have a longing inside for the message of Jesus, since you beat down my internet door to come in and hear it. True, you attempt to discredit it, but I believe this is your attempt to quite your conscience and justify your own views to yourself. This is typically what people in need of saving do: if they know they need saving, they accept. If they don't want to change their lifestyle or their minds, they make it their life's work to make the truth wrong (which cannot be done) This really has little to do with me (unless you just think I'm hot) and everything to do with you.

Oh yeah, I think she's hot. Uh huh. Middle-aged, Catholic mothers of four are my thing.

I am not "longing for the message of Jesus" either. I know what it is and I agree with it. She is the one who discredits the message of Jesus more than I do. Would Jesus volunteer to work for George Bush and jump out of a plane to shoot at Muslims to secure a supply of oil? Or would Jesus be one of the millions of people protesting Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq?

"People in need of saving"? Saved from what? I need to be saved from over-zealous christians who think that they know what is best for their neighbors and the rest of the world.

Actually I'm on my own little anti-witnessing campaign. Every week I have christian pamphlets left in my door. On my radio, where I once picked up local community radio stations, I get a satellite feed from Tennessee or somewhere with christian preachers. In the public or university library when I check out a book there is a pretty good chance that there is a Chick tract in it. I guess it is okay for christians to come univited into everyone else's lives.

I am just trying to do my part to provide an alternative to "all Bush, all Jesus, all the time". If I comment and she deletes it then at least I know that she read it.

I am sick of the holier-than-thou attitudes of these people.

I am also sick of Rick Santorum's weaselly face. He will lose in 2006.

And now the baby is crying so I may have to come back and edit later.

File under: Religion,Hypocrites

Dubya Quote of the Day

"I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."
-- Governor George "Dubya" Bush to Doug Wead in 1998 or 1999

Random thoughts on a Sunday

• More people voted against George "Dubya" Bush in 2004 (57,695,898) and in 2000 (54,916,568) than voted for Reagan in 1984 (54,451,521).


• 51% is not a Decisive Victory or a Mandate!


• Bill Clinton has been out of office for more than four years yet Republicans are still bashing him.


• Some people claim to "follow the evidence", but even after almost two years of US occupation and NO evidence of WMD (the reason Dubya gave to the American people for starting a war) they still support the war and the man who has sent more than 1,500 American servicemen and women to their deaths.


• There is no Social Security Crisis.


• Why has Bush not been impeached for lying to Congress?


• Dubya does not care about the Iraqi people, all he cares about are US economic and strategic interests in the region.


• Congratulations to Dubya and Rummy on their recent awards.

Oh, Irony...

"We must always remind Russia, however, that our alliance stands for a free press, a vital opposition, the sharing of power and the rule of law."
-- George "Dubya" Bush, 21 Februaray 2005

Does anyone else see any irony in that statement? The Bush Administration has been trying to be more like the Putin Government yet Bush went before the world and admonished him. Does Bush support a free press at home? Vital opposition? Sharing of power? Ha. And the rule of law has been flaunted by this administration over and over.

More propaganda and hypocrisy

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

More on the inauguration

From Greg Palast:

Oaf of Office
by Greg Palast

Watching John Kerry lip-synch the oath of office, I couldn't help wondering, 'what if.'

Here on stage in Washington was the winner-class warmed and protected by cashmere and tax cuts against the strange, nipple-chilling cold. Hell had frozen over.

Our President said, "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation." Well, no, it isn't.

Our President said, "We will widen retirement savings and health insurance." No, he won't.

Our President said, "America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains." Yes, he will.

Our President said, "And our country must abandon all the habits of racism." Oh, sure.

He doesn't believe a single word he's saying. And all over America, everyone knows he's lying and America is truly relieved.

America doesn't want to give up the habit of racism. Karl Rove doesn't. Jeb Bush doesn't. If not for challenging hundreds of thousands of voters in Black precincts of Ohio and other swing states, if not for purging thousands more from voter rolls for the crime of voting while Black, you wouldn't be president now, would you, Mr. President?

You won't "pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains," unless they are chained by your buck-buddies in Saudi Arabia.

You'll "support democratic movements" so long as the citizens of Venezuela don't get carried away and decide that democracy means they can choose a leader you don't like.
[more]

Lisa Rein has video of the Daily Show coverage of the inauguration speech here.
I liked this part:

Dubya: "When you stand for your liberty, we will stand for you."
Jon Stewart: "offer not valid in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and all of Africa."

And he could have added quite a few more. When Bush said that I thought about the Palestinians in the occupied territories. After all, the Bush Administration claims that it was only enforcing a UN resolution when it decided to invade Iraq. Israel is in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 yet the US government continues to supply Israel with military aid and weapons. Why is Bush not enforcing those UN resolutions?

Tsunami, pt 2

It took nearly a week but some of the "christian" bloggers have chimed in on the tsunami. I guess they had to wait to get the official word from the Bush Administration before they could comment.

A big surprise, they are comparing aid to the the victims of this natural disaster to Iraq. Dumb Girl has a map of Asia with the words "worth humanitarian aid" across it and a map of Iraq with "not worth humanitarian aid" on it. Mr Dumb Girl writes in the comments section, "The US has 4% of the world's population and provides nearly half of the world's food relief/aid EVERY DAY..." I would also point out that the US has about half of the world's wealth. Also Japan has about half the population of the US and they led the world in foreign aid for most of the past twelve years. Mr Dumb Girl goes on to say, "The US also supports international stability with its global reach military capability and ALL nations benefit from the sacrifices of the US soldier and the taxpayer behind him....The world owes President Bush and the US taxpayer a hearty THANK YOU instead of criticism." Is he serious? That is just laughable. Ask the people of Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. how grateful they are to US for intervening in their affairs.

...more later

Keep the war criminal out

Apparently war criminal Bush can not be indicted in Canada because he is still in office. Canada does, however, have an immigration law banning war criminals or suspected war criminals from entering the country.

November 26, 2004 A Memo to Canada's Ministry of Immigration Why Bush Should be Banned from Canada By MICHAEL MANDEL and GAIL DAVIDSON The Honourable Judy Sgro, P.C., M.P. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Ottawa Canada K1A 1L1 Tel: 1 613 954 1064 Fax: 1 613 957 2688 Minister@cic.gc.ca sgro.j@parl.gc.ca Dear Minister Sgro, Re: President George W. Bush proposed November 30th 2004 visit to Canada. We wrote to Prime Minister Martin on November 19 2004 protesting the invitation of President Bush to Canada on the grounds of the President's flagrant commission of the most serious crimes against international law. Our letter is enclosed. As that letter indicates, many of the crimes of which President Bush stands accused are crimes under Canadian law, specifically under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. We are writing to you now to remind you that these crimes render President Bush inadmissible to Canada under our immigration laws. Because responsibility for the operation and enforcement of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act lies with you and your Ministry, we are calling on you to advise the Prime Minister of this fact and to insist that he rescind this invitation out of respect for our laws. As you know, section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001 2001 provides as follows: 35. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for (a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; Paragraph 2 of section 35 allows for exceptions to be made for other classes of inadmissible foreign nationals 'who satisf[y] the Minister that their presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest.' However, these exceptions specifically do not apply to those who have committed acts constituting offences referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Section 6 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act incorporates by reference all international crimes against humanity and war crimes, and, explicitly, all crimes enumerated in Articles 7 and 8(2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Section 7 of the Act places special responsibility on 'military commanders' and other 'superiors' for crimes committed by their subordinates that they knew of, or were criminally negligent in failing to know of, and with respect to which they did not take necessary and reasonable steps to prevent. Section 33 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act specifically provides that 'facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur.' The evidence of President Bush's past and ongoing criminality is overwhelming. A recent editorial in the Washington Post commented on some of the now well known facts regarding the chain of memoranda from the President and White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, now Attorney General, that led to the use of torture by the US Armed Forces. These memoranda clearly establish the President's culpability for the torture used on detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons. We also refer you to the many careful reports prepared by respected human rights organizations, journalists and scholars and also to recent decisions by US Courts, some of which are referenced in our letter to the Prime Minister and others we have listed below. These clearly provide far more than 'reasonable grounds to believe' in President Bush's legal and moral responsibility for the gravest crimes under numerous provisions of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. [read more]