Impeach with compassion

The recent letter by Dr. Robert D. Phillips [“We’re All Part of This Problem,” Sept. 26] had some interesting and no doubt accurate observations about the dysfunctions of the American family and the Bush family. Surely Mr. Bush’s flaws are ours as well, in varying degrees. And yes, we are all complicit in our society of greed, indifference and self-interest, also in widely varying degrees.

But here’s a critical difference: Most of us, no matter how dysfunctional, have the power to affect only a relatively small number of people. Not so for the president of the United States. This “profile in damage” has the power of life and death over countless Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis and other living beings, human and nonhuman, around the globe. Not to mention the power to wreak general havoc on environmental, economic, civil-rights [and other] issues here at home.

I would turn Dr. Phillips’ statement on its head and say that this man’s policies and decisions as president are what should be important to compassionate Americans; the fact that he is “acting out the consequences of his childhood family drama” is quite incidental, and not really of concern to us in the political arena.

Perhaps by saying our president “cannot afford” to change his program, Dr. Phillips is saying he is literally unable to. … If we think that’s so, then feeling helpless would indeed be the only possibility—or, perhaps, hoping for the compassion fairy to descend and touch us, each and every one.

For those of us who believe in the possibility of volitional action, there already exists a mechanism for “intervention” when a president commits crimes and exceeds his designated powers. It’s called impeachment. It’s what should be done here. Compassion for George W. Bush—[and for] all living things—is fine, but compassion (and justice) for his victims and potential future victims should be a priority. Job No. 1 should be to get his pitiable posterior out of office, along with his more dangerous and perhaps more “damaged” vice president.

One great virtue of our political system is that its design incorporates safeguards against the abuse of power. The very idea of a government of laws and not of men implies that we need not wait until we are all filled with compassion and enlightened, or are saved. It’s a system that is meant to work despite our flawed nature as human beings.

Yes, there’s a lot of blaming, complaining, hand-wringing etc. But the American people did demonstrate last November their real desires, as well as their faith in the system and their elected representatives. Whether that faith in either is justified has yet to be seen, and might make an interesting psychological study for another day. So far, very few of those representatives have had the courage to put statesmanship above personal ambition and stand up for the right thing. What we can do is relentlessly keep pressure on them to do so. With compassion, of course.

— Brad Nickerson

About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

49 thoughts on “Impeach with compassion

  1. travelah

    What high crimes and misdemeanors shall you charge the President with? The Congress was absolutely wrong to impeach Bill Clinton and the Senate wisely refused to convict him. Hopefully there are enough wise souls in the Congress to avoid the partisan nightmare you advocate. The Constitutional means available to address your grievances is the election every four years rather than the impeachment process. Take advantage of it.

  2. chuck


    Lying to the America people, (wmd’s), allowing torture, Guantanamo bay detainee’s denied Habeus Corpus, The Patriot Act and other constitution-breakers… the list goes on and on and on and on and…

  3. travelah

    Let’s address each of your reasons for impeachment and see if they have merit.

    1. Lying to the American people (WMD) – This is an expressed opinion by yourself and one that does not constitute perjury. It should also be pointed out that were your opinion of lying to the American people grounds for impeachment, we should clog every court in the land with impeachment proceedings against every politician you and I can think of. Again, the high crime and misdemeanor you are trying to apply is called perjury and there has been no instance of such by this President.

    2. Allowing torture – The definition of torture is subject to US law and to date there is no evidence that GWB directed any such activities. That lack of evidence removes this charge as well from a sustainable impeachment.

    3. The Guantanamo detention issue rests on the current position that enemy combatants are not afforded Habeas Corpus protections especially when detained outside the United States by military action. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the administration is entitled to rectify the matter. It is not a high crime and misdemeanor.

    4. The Patriot Act is currently law, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States. Passing legislation and signing into law that same legislation is not an impeachable offense. The Supreme Court determines it’s constitutionality. Whether all of it’s provisions are sustained or not, there is no reasonable argument to be made that passing legislation into law is an impeachable offense. Otherwise we will have to do as suggested by your lying example: impeach every sitting Congressman.

    5. Having an act ruled unconstitional is also not grounds for impeachment. It is in a word UNCONSTITUTIONAL grounds for impeachment.

    Is the lack of “civics” savy a contagious disease among those who hold such contempt for the office of the President?

  4. oh, ‘travelah’, your so silly. you make me smile.

    “As members of Parliament of Westminster, amici have a duty to protect human rights and
    fundamental freedoms against the misuse of public power. The due process of law is deeply
    rooted in Anglo-American legal and political heritage. The exercise of executive power without
    possibility of judicial review jeopardizes the keystone of our existence as nations, namely the rule of law, as well as the effective protection of human rights.”
    -from a British Supreme Court “Friend of the Court Brief” to the US Supreme Court, in reference to a US Supreme Cort case establishing the point you make.

    I suggest goggling “Lord Clarenden”, who suspended Habeas Corpus in England in the 1600’s, sending “enemies of the crown” to a prison on a small island off of the mainland of England. He was impeached. At his impeachment trial, he was accused of sending people away to “remote islands, garrisons and other places, thereby to prevent them from the benefit of the law, and to produce precedents for the imprisoning of any other of his majesty’s subjects in like manner.”

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t mean to imply that the English know more about Democracy than us. And i don’t even mean to imply that I wish to see the President Impeached. I think he and the Vice President deserve a far harsher punishment than that. I merely wished to answer some of the questions you originally stated.

    Yut you are right, “we” know nothing about “civics”, and our desire to see the reputation of the office of President returned to a higher standard obviously shows contempt for the office.

    Statements and mentalities such as that, ‘sir’, are truly the most destructive to whatever collective character our Nation holds; calling citizens names for having an interest in politics. Claiming that someone who has a problem with the illegal activities carried out by the current administration as holding contempt for the office itself? Truly Rovian in your twisting of the issue, ‘sir’.

    The steamroller of Capitalism and History may prove you right, but the individual’s conscience and heart truly knows who is the monster and who the saint.

  5. travelah

    You have not countered with any rebuttal of my points. Have you relinquished or shall you offer a second round of 17th century trivial pursuit?

  6. oh, travelah, again with the sillyness.

    methinks you didnt actually read my post, but merely skimmed.

    The first quote from the British Supreme court was the Friend of the Court briefing filed after the US Supreme court made the decision you refer to about these prisoners being ‘enemy combatants’ and not actual soldiers, therefore stripping them of any human rights they may have had. The second bit of info is info they included in the Friend of the Court Briefing, to give some context as to why they felt this USSC ruling was so counter to the direction of Democracy. So it is actually quite relevant recent History, from right here in the 21st century. But it took place outside of the Center of the Universe, the US, so it must have only seemed like useless nonsense to such a Patriot as yourself.

    Now, i could go on and on with quotes and links and what-not to counter your 4 points, but you and I both know you are not interested in having your opinion changed. So unless you wish to pay me for said research time, let’s just leave it at that.

    If you don’t believe the Current Administration has violated any international (or U.S.) laws, or do not believe that the current administration is subject to any of these laws, then no amount of quoting or listing of facts will change your mind.

    You represent those folks (and there are a lot of them, so don’t feel like you are alone) who believe that whatever CheneyCo. does in the name of “Fighting Terrorism” is okay, because there are terrorists trying to break into your house and steal your Ipod. That’s fine. You are very entitled to that opinion.

    But if you need me to explain to you how Bush stole an election or two, Lied about WMD’s (you don’t remember?), directly ordered Torture as well as Extraordinary Rendition (this was in the paper not two weeks ago), and has manipulated the Constitution in order to ‘legalize’ his totalitarian actions, well, you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree.

    It’s just that you hate America. And that’s okay. Your side appears to be winning by leaps and bounds. History, as Our Dear Leader says, will validate you.

  7. solito

    Dear Chuck and Travelah –

    Thank you so much for your dialogue. You both reinforce my love for this country and you both are representing the American dream…by debating in an intelligent manner. I love it! Keep up the good work.


  8. travelah

    I provided 5 rebuttal points to your charges. If you are able, please refute them relying on US Constitutional law. I am not interested in engaging in a steady ad hom attack nor defending a reasonable understanding of constitutional protocol against a defense that looks to foreign bias or the vagaries of non-binding “international law”. Neither represents a ground for impeachment since they are not US high crimes and misdemeanors.

  9. “Treason: an act of deliberate betrayal.”

    Again, this will come down to my opinion/your opinion, but there is plenty of proof out there that Bush et al. deliberately lied to the American Public (and the world) when they claimed that Iraq had WMD’s. Your argument that all politicians lie does not seem to me to be a very good ‘rebuttal’ of this fact.

    Now, again, I don’t really think impeachment is practical or anywhere near appropriate, but to deny that they have committed ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is hilarious.

    Why is it that the neo-cons and so-called ‘conservatives’ and ‘republicans’ think that they can out-of-hand deny the facts in a case? Valerie Plame? Outing a CIA agent? You truly think that doesn’t constitute a “High Crime”?

    Your “5 Rebuttals” are hilarious, and based on opinion, not fact. The US Constitution has been changed and manipulated by these men to legitimize their criminal actions. If You believe they can do this, without any legal repercussions, then please DO NOT read on. You will not be swayed by my arguments.

    1. Again with the definition of “Treason.” Please refer to a dictionary if necessary. Unless those are based on biased ‘opinion’ as well.

    2.Torture. You are right that the U.S. gets to make whatever laws it wants in relation to torture. Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” which makes torture ‘legal’. But does this make it okay? Do the American People not have a say in what they want their government doing and not doing? The idea that you are defending the use of torture by U.S. soldiers and CIA operatives is, in my opinion, disgusting. And claiming you have the ‘law’ on your side is even more revolting.

    3. ah, Guantanamo Bay. Your third point. That the Bush Admin. can change the ‘legal definition’ of “Enemy Combatant” so that they may treat human beings like legal asterics is, again, disgusting. I suppose that part in the US Constitution about legal representation (thats the whole Habeus Corpus thing again, in case you missed it. Some say it is the backbone of our legal system.) and a fair trial only counts under certain situations? Like, if your not from a certain class or race?
    I included the bit about the British Supreme Court, and the historical context of Clarendon, to illustrate to you how other well-established, Western legal institutions reacted when they heard the US Supreme Court Ruling that allowed for this definition of “Enemy combatants” to not receive due process in a court of law.Many countries had this right secured before they had anything resembling a constitution. (I site the case involving England previously to give a historical context of how important this has been for centuries in Western Law. Yes, that’s right, travelah, there are other countries with a history of democracy other than this one, which we as a notion have collectively taken cues from. That in 17th Century England, years before many civil rights were even a dream in people’s children’s eyes, the Court were still so fond of Habeus Corpus as to Impeach the Lord who violated it. This is 400 years ago. But, judging from your previous response, you assume “American Democracy” was born and exists in a bubble, without any historical or legal precedence? Now, I understand that Bill Oreily teaches his minions to believe that the US may ‘go it alone’ in any situation, and that the US may create laws to justify their actions, but many of us citizens feel we learned something a little different in those silly, liberal public schools. The part about Justice being blind and all men protected under the law, equality and so forth. So when i learn that my government has changed the definition of torture, or the definition of ‘person’ to justify their own, twisted and confusing needs, well, I am left feeling confused. And yet here you are telling me its okay to torture and detain indefinitely because we moved some words around and put some notes at the bottom of the Constitution. This is frightening to me.

    Which brings us to 4. The Patriot Act. Where to start with this one? Well, since you arent reading this anyway, I’ll make it short. Spying on US citiens? Unwarrented phone taps? Rooting through people’s library records without a court order? Again, perhaps it is my liberal bias from a public school education, paid for by unmarked, black helicopter-flying UN soldiers, but I have always been under the impression that these were actions of Totalitarian regemes and not the good ‘ol U.S. of A. But the Patriot act makes them ‘legal’, so its okay.

    So, to paraphrase my earlier response, which seems suitable; You believe that this administration may do whatever it please, as long as they change the laws around the make their actions ‘legal’. This is an opinion held by many in this country. You are not alone in holding it. But, my understanding of the US Constitution and Law states that many of these activities used by this Admin., in the name of “National Defense” are tantamount to lying to the public. This is the definition of treason; lying. They lied about WMD’s, about Valerie Plame, about 9/11, about the use of torture on detainees, etc etc etc.

    Now, as i have said before, I don’t think Impeachment is a good idea. I am waiting for someone else to take up this string who really cares. I don’t. They are all crooks (as you have admitted), and this is just how it goes in this world of Pirates. The bigger prates steal from the smaller pirates. The only difference is that today, with a media that can get ideas across the globe in seconds, the people have to be lied to more creatively. So when you post some nonsense about how Bush and Co. haven’t committed “High Crimes and Treasons”, well I have to point out to you that the definition of Treason is, among other things, lying.

    So, if your defense is only that “They didn’t lie because the changed the legal definition of ‘lying’ to allow their actions to go unchecked , well, please save your typing fingers. And dont miss the OReilly Factor.

  10. travelah

    I was hoping for an intellectual argument rather than more of this rhetorical posturing. Let’s look at your responses to the five points I made and see if they hold any mustard.

    1. This issue dealt with the matter of perjury or lying under oath rather than the issue of treason. Treason is well defined under the law and a dictionary is not sufficient for understanding the issues involved. However, again, you failed to address how George Bush could reasonably be held for trial in the Senate on a charge of perjury. In fact he could not as he has not been deposed under oath in any matter as President of the US to my knowledge.

    2. The laws regarding “torture” become law after the Congress passes the bill and the President signs it into law. Bush has not passed and signed any legislation of his own design. Every bill he has signed was delivered to him from the Congress. How does your “rebuttal” address the fact that what the administration is doing is entirely legal according to US law? In fact, it doesn’t address anything. Instead you are trying to establish your own standard rather than applying the standard required of the US Constitution for impeaching a sitting President of the US.

    3. I am taking a guess here that you are not very familiar with 16th century English society and who specifically was afforded protection with Habeas Corpus. However I digress. It remains a fact that at least for now the administration is acting in accordance with US law and until the law is repealed, over-written or provisions of the law are overturned on appeal to the US Supreme Court, there remains no legitimate case to present to the House for impeachment or the Senate for trial.

    4. Since the Patriot Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, it is not an impeachable offense to implement the law. I think you should be reminded that it’s earlier predecessor, FISA, was enacted into law under the auspices of a Democrat President, Jimmy Carter.

    5. This one you seem to have failed to follow-up on. You do realize that your objections and stated reasons for impeaching the President of the United States are not only improper but are themselves unconstitutional as they do not constitute high crimes and misdemeanors?

    Lastly, I have noticed a trend that seems common among the left, that being the frequent use of the ad hom attack when a proper intellectual defense is lacking. Contrary to your assertions, I am not a fan of George Bush even though I voted for him two times. By most accounts I would be considered a social libertarian and an economic conservative. I am, however, a constructionist with regard to how the US Constitution is to be interpreted and the foolishness that seems to erupt in Asheville calling for the impeachment of the President needs to be exposed for what it is, ignorant rhetoric (no offense intended).

    (It should also be noted that the issue is not over “High Crimes and Treasons”. It is a matter of whether or not there have been “high crimes and misdemeanors” instead. There is a significant distinction.)

  11. Good points.
    Your right, I was wrong. By re-writing the rules and never appearing under oath, both Bush and Cheney have successfully re-written what is acceptable in the Public’s eye, and we have nothing but worse crimes to come in the future, because of this glorious precedent. Long live the Imperial State of ‘Murika!
    Thanks for the healthy debate.
    Now go outside.

  12. I do feel the need to say that your otherwise intelligent post loses a lot of credit by making broad generalizations about the ‘left’.
    I have not made any statements regarding my political leanings. My dislike of the current Admin’s policies and actions do not necessarily imply Democrat status. I did not/do not support Carter, nor do I feel any allegiance whatsoever towards the Left’s policies in this country.

    Why is it that people tend towards starting vindictive arguments on the internet with imaginary people? You rail against a large group of people , but then imply a specific person’s membership in said group so you can turn it into a name-calling contest. I suggest speaking with self-proclaimed Leftist, Progressives, and the like if wish to rail against them. Perhaps your neighbor said something stupid yesterday about the President. Please respond to him, not me. My original post merely stated that I think there are plenty of examples of old george breaking the law. You have proven my assumptions incorrect. He has broken no laws, or at least none that all other branches of government have also broken.
    I could care less about impeachment, as I have stated. I would rather see Dick and Bush put in prison, but I hold little faith of that ever occurring.
    With that said, do you feel that this current Admin should not be held accountable for lying about the Iraq war, for misleading congress and the public? I am guessing no, but you have never stated any particular stance except against Jimmy Carter and anonymous “Progressives”.
    Where do you stand in relation to this “Legal” war in a country that presents to danger to us?
    Or are you still believe in the WMD’s being found?

  13. travelah

    I would like for you to point to any credible moderate or right leaning discussions favoring the impeachment of GWB for any of the reasons you gave. It should be obvious that these discussions and suggestions come from the left.

    I do not believe you will find any instance of my “railing” against any group in this discussion. Secondly, what crimes would you press against the President and Vice-President causing their imprisonment? You do realize that you must first impeach and convict in order to do that?

    As for accountability, that rests in the election cycle. If the voting public wishes to change the direction of this country, then they may do so in a general election. Keep in mind however that the wind blows both directions. The public will switch it’s desires again in the future. That is a lesson the Demcrats and their radical supporters would do well to keep in mind.
    As for this war in Iraq, I did not support going to war in Iraq seeing it as a foolish venture instead. It is a mess yet it is mess that has to be cleaned up before we leave. Iraq’s documented history of using horrific weapons is a matter of record. They did exist and most likely do exist (in my opinion they are in Syria).
    I am more concerned with both Syria and Iran than I am with Iraq. Saddam was penned up and manageable. Iran and Syria are not. In addition Pakistan is a grave issue. Unfortunately, the shrill voices from the left are ignorant of the consequences of their advocacy.

  14. Hopefully

    Goll-lee you guys sure are smart. George Bush is the perfect President for these times. Right now we need a sociopath in charge to protect us. You see, we don’t have the stomach for all the killing of men, women, children its going to take to make us safe from the boogieman, thats why we re-elected him. Our murderer by proxie! Hey, what a great slogan “proxie murder for profit” Let the blood flow, support corp. amerika

  15. Hopefully

    What does that mean? Love it or leave it? I’ll do neither… Mr. Nickerson is right about bush. My father said you were a pompouss pseudo-intellectual, but I think thats a little too flattering. You do realize you can win an argument and still be wrong.

  16. travelah

    light&hope;, read it again ….. move or ADAPT (not love it). If you are not willing to adapt to life’s circumstances you are likely to have a pretty frustrating life.

    As for Mr. Nickerson being right about Bush, I think I demonstrated sufficiently in this thread that he is particularly wrong with regard to the matter of impeachment. Hopefully you do realize that when a position is won by evidence, context and fact, the winner is usually (well let’s just say always) right.

    As for your daddy considering me a pompous psuedo-intellectual, I suppose that confirms my comments regarding maturity. You do realize what an ad hominem fallacy is, do you not?

  17. Hopefully

    Is it anything like a argumentum ad personam? Vestri argument est amo a meretricis anus , plenus of feces. Impeachment happens so seldom that the term is often misunderstood. A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact, it is only the legal statement of charges. In other words, all it requires is for a legislative body to make a legal statement of charges. Let me make myself perfectly clear. I am in agreement with Mr. Nickerson. I also believe GWB is a dangerous sociopath who has done great harm to a lot of people here and abroad and should at the least be subjected to the official scrutiny of impeachment. So, what do you believe, mr. debater?

  18. travelah

    I believe you are having a bad hair day and cannot seem to articulate a solid argument. You are also wrong regarding constitutional impeachment. Rather than a statement of charges, impeachment is the equivalent of a “grand jury indictment” requiring a majority vote to impliment. The statement of charges is what the House of Representatives considers and then submits those charges or some of them or more to the Senate. There is considerably more involved than simply submitting a “legal statement of charges” which is what a prosecutor submits to the judiciary.
    What I believe with regard to Mr. Bush is that he was wrong to move us into Iraq. He is not a sociopath and he should not be subjected to impeachment for the reasons I have already noted in this thread.

    You do realize that when you mask vulgarities with a plethora of words, it does little to boost your grasp of civil discourse?

  19. Hopefully

    You are a sophist trying to win a debate.I am defending my heartfelt beliefs. And if you think your continued references to my sex and age to be part of civil discourse then carry on…you know what they say about age and treachery winning out over youthful idealism…its not true this time. You’ve demonstrated nothing more than a propensity for obsfucation. Veni Vidi Vici

  20. travelah

    light&hope;…. I have already won through facts and reality rather than through sophistry and it is clear you are ill-equipped to refute this. While you may wish to defend your heartfelt beliefs you have to realize at some point that you need to start doing that in order for your commentary to have any merit.

  21. mockeyjew

    Why you picking on that little girl travelet? Although it looks like she is akickin your but. Wheres your sense of chibery. It looks like you are just blowing smoke. What does sophisma meretricis mean? Is that spannish or french?

  22. travelah

    mockey … careful now .. you’ll end up tarred as a sexist and spellin impaired

  23. Hopefully

    At last, a gentleman. Its latin, mockey, it means (loosely translated) prevaricating prostitute, although I’m sure travelah is a latin scholar and will explain to us how the word has been misused etc.

  24. travelah

    light&hope;, I was required to take two years of Latin during my youthful years and that is where I left it. I must say however that your ad hominem method remains much intact. The same cannot be said of any rebuttal you offer regarding the content of this topic.

  25. Hopefully

    Travailer, you sound like you would like to be my daddy, do you want give me a spanking? Come down off your high horse Dr. Professor. Bushie is a sociopath and you are an apologist for him. Do not try to justify his murderous ways. He is a murderer of women and children who should be indicted!

  26. ingarageland

    Whoa slapdown. Travelah-1 , hope-2, but really yall Hope comes across as a royal b, and you Travelah, with your screwball logic, remind me of a near senile professor I had at Wake. (no I don’t think you are senile) you should be more civil to each other. Life is too short to be so mean. We are all americans and hope for the best for our country.

  27. Hopefully

    It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it. – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  28. Nam Vet

    Whine all you want people. President Bush has done nothing that arises to the level of impeachment. If he had, the partisan hatemongers of the left would have actually done it by now. Now there have only been two presidents ever impeached in this country. Fortunately, for those with a morbid sense, you only have to look back to the late 1990s to enjoy the impeachement of the Great Prevaricator, William J Clinton. Clinton was impeached for lying. He was also convicted in court of perjury (lying) and has been permanently bared from arguing law cases in front of the US Supreme Court.

  29. Traveleh

    After doing some additional investigations , I am beginning to think W may have crossed the line into criminality. Impeachment may be the only correct course of action. And by the way namvet, all politicians lie, it’s their job. Grow up, you sound like a disenchanted college boy.

  30. Nam Vet

    If you “think” you can find a way to impeach the President you must tell your yankee liberal politicians in Congress. Because if they cannot find a way to impeach him, there is nothing there. Period. The impeachment thing is just liberal partisan hatred, driven by the desire to get even for Clinton’s impeachment. And liberal partisan hatred is indeed juvenile. :)

  31. tatuaje

    Bush Misled America about the Threat from Iraq

    Why did we invade Iraq? Was it because, as the White House claimed, Saddam Hussein was an immediate and serious threat to America. Or did Bush mislead the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating this threat.

    Bush claims he was forced to to invade Iraq as a last resort. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his presidency. Many of his team came from the PNAC, a thinktank which urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and pointed out the need for a “new Pearl Harbor”. “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Ron Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

    This is not a situation where Bush said ten things and one of them was wrong. Basically everything Bush said about the threat from Iraq was false. He had no solid evidence of any threat but still led us into this deadly and costly war. Here are the main lies about the threat from Iraq given by Bush and Cheney:

    * Lie #1 – Uranium from Niger – Bush said “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.
    * Lie #2 – Iraq and 9/11 – Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
    * Lie #3 – Congress Knew – Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet]
    * Lie #4 – Aluminum Tubes – Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]
    * Lie #5 – Iraq and Al Qaeda – Bush still insists that there was a “relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no “collaborative relationship” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN] On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship. [ABC]
    * Lie #6 – Weapons of Mass Destruction – Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his “evidence” consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
    * Lie #7 – Mobile Weapons Labs – Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq’s bio-weapons program. The expert’s report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost] [ABC]

    Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA’s intelligence estimates on Iraq’s weapons programs, removing caveats such as “likely,” “probably” and “may” as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. [Mother Jones] [New Yorker] [Wikipedia]

    By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.

    Impeachment for Violating International Law

    George Bush has committed war crimes in violation of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.

    Synopsis: Bush attacked Iraq, against the decisions of the United Nations, and thus violated the UN Charter. Planning and committing a war of aggression is a violation of the Nuremberg Principles. According to the US Constitution these international treaties are part of the “supreme Law of the Land”. Bush has violated the Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter and is, therefore, subject to impeachment.
    UN Charter part of “the supreme Law of the Land”
    Article VI of the US Constitution states that:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;”

    Because Bush violated International Laws that we agreed to by treaty, then he is also violating the supreme Law of the Land which is an impeachable offense. Note that it says “or which shall be made” so treaties signed after the Constitution was adopted are still covered.
    Violation of The United Nations Charter
    Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states:

    3.All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
    4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

    Bush lied to the UN and to Congress about the seriousness of the threat from Iraq, and invaded Iraq in defiance of a vote from the UN Security Council. His actions inflamed the Arab world and set a dangerous precedent for any other country that wants to defy the UN and start their own war.
    Violation of the Nuremberg Principles defining “War Crimes”
    Principle Vl of the Nuremberg Principles states:

    The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
    a. Crimes against peace:
    i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or
    a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
    ii .Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment
    of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

    Bush invaded a sovereign country that had not threatened the United States and had no ability to do so. Bush had been making plans to invade Iraq even before 9/11.

    Bush Conducted Illegal Wiretaps of American Citizens

    Bush has admitted to authorizing the NSA, a secretive spy agency, to conduct warrantless wire taps on American citizens. The spying even extends to postal mail. The NSA has also been collecting phone records in an attempt to build a database of every phone call that is made.

    1. 2003 – Mark Klein, a retired AT&T;communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the Electronic Fronteir Foundation’s FF’s lawsuit against AT&T;. He testified that in 2003 he connected a “splitter” that sent a copy of Internet traffic and phone calls to a secure room that was operated by the NSA in the San Francisco office of AT&T;. He heard from a co-worker that similar rooms were being constructed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. From “Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room”, Wired News, 4/7/06 [Wired] [EFF Case]
    2. 12/15/05 – The New York Times reveals that “Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.” The Bush wiretaps violated US law because he was required to get approval from FISA. He can start a wiretap of a suspected terrorist at any time but must then seek approval to continue within 72 hours.
    3. Attorney General Gonzales claims HJR114 gave Bush authority to conduct the wiretaps. But HJR114 only grants use of the “Armed Forces”. HJR114 does not explicitly suspend the Constitution. Also HJR114 requires “The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3”. Congress was not notified of these wiretaps. [HJR114]
    4. Bush may have bypassed FISA because he wanted to listen to and analyze all international signals, not just those of suspected terrorists. He knew this was blatantly illegal so he hid it. Bush says “We use FISA still. But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.” Then later “There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it’s important to note the distinction between the two.” The distinction is that “detecting” requires listening to lots of calls with a computer to see if someone says certain keywords like “bomb” in Arabic, or maybe even “impeach Bush” in English. Monitoring is listening to a specific suspected terrorist. The problem with detection is that you have to listen to all calls, including yours and mine. [This NY Times article confirms this interpretation. Also CNN.]
    5. More evidence that Bush wants to listen to all signals is in Bob Woodward’s book “Bush at War,” on page 303. ” Bush summarized his strategy: ‘Listen to every phone call and close them down and protect the innocents.'” [WaPost]
    6. James B. Comey, acting Attorney General, refused to sign an authorization for the NSA program because it “did not comply with the law”. On March 10th, 2004, Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card tried to bypass Comey be getting a disoriented John Ashcroft to sign an authorization from his hospital bed. Comey rushed to the hospital to stop them. On March 11th, Bush intervened personally to get the Justice Department to authorize the program. [NYTimes]
    7. Investigators may have found that Bush applied for an expansion of wiretap capability from FISA, was rejected, and then went ahead and did it anyway. [FindLaw] [FAS]
    8. Bush claims going through FISA is too slow but legal emergency wiretaps helped capture terrorist Mosquera.
    9. According to a report in USA Today, the NSA is collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans – most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders. The stated goal is to be able to identify who is involved in a network of terrorists. But this same technique can be used to determine who is involved in a network of political activists who might, for example, oppose the Bush administration. Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers’ calling habits. All of the major telecommunications companies cooperated with this program except for Qwest. Joe Nacchio, CEO of Qwest, was troubled by the fact that there was no FISA approval and that the program was so pervasive.
    10. 8/18/06 – In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the wiretaps are unconstitutional. [NYTimes] [WashPost]
    11. 8/19/07 – New York Times says “Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records…”

  32. quotequeen

    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
    ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

  33. Nam Vet

    “Every tax that is put on the back of the working man by an overbearing socialist government, is a theft from the workers’ starving family. This world of big government excess is not spending our tax money alone. It is spending the sweat of it’s laborers, the genius of it’s entrepreneurs, the hopes of it’s children. This is not a way of happy life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of socialist tyranny, it is working humanity hanging on a cross of hammers and sickles.”

  34. Nam Vet

    Did President Bush purposely midlead the public in making war on Saddam Hussein’s Baath Socialist Party Iraq? If he had, you can be assured the Henry Waxman democrats in Congress would have already drawn up articles of impeachment. They haven’t and nothing is proven. Here is a refutation of the above proaganda post by tataje:


    We find some subtle word-twisting, and place the claims in context.


    An anti-war coalition of mostly liberal groups ran a newspaper ad quoting six alleged lies about Iraq by President Bush and others.

    But, like movie blurbs, the quotes sometimes look different when read in full context.

    And while much of what the ad calls lies was indeed wrong, there’s evidence that the President and his advisers believed the falsehoods at the time.


    The ad carried a bold-faced headline saying ‘They Lied,’ and six brief quotes from Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Rice (now Secretary of State). It also carried a list of American military personnel killed in Iraq, along with the words “They Died.”

    The ad appeared Sept. 22, 2005 in USA Today and more than a dozen other newspapers. The sponsor, “Win Without Wars,” is a coalition made up of groups including Political Action, and using Fenton Communications, the same media consultant used by

    The brief quotes all seem starkly false in hindsight. But some are a bit too stark – they look a bit different when read in full context. Furthermore, calling them lies suggests Bush and his advisers knew they were wrong at the time. And a bipartisan commission concluded earlier this year that what the Bush administration told the world about Iraqi weapons – while tragically mistaken – was based on faulty intelligence.

    ‘We Found The Weapons’

    Bush is quoted as saying ‘We found the weapons of mass destruction,’ but that’s not all he said. The quote is from an interview with Polish television given May 29, 2003 – weeks after the fall of Baghdad, as Bush was starting to face questions about why no Iraqi stores of such weapons had been found.

    Reading all of what Bush said makes clear he was referring both to ‘weapons’ and to ‘manufacturing facilities’ and was still clinging to what intelligence officials had told him about Iraqi mobile laboratories that supposedly were used for manufacturing biological weapons.

    The full quote:

    Q: Weapons of mass destruction haven’t been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?
    Bush, May 29, 2003: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.

    In the end, neither weapons nor manufacturing facilities were found. Bush was wrong about the mobile laboratories, of course. He was repeating a claim transmitted to him by the CIA, which based its intelligence reports on an Iraqi source, code-named ‘Curveball,’ whom it later determined to be a fabricator. But the CIA didn’t formally recall Curveball’s reporting until May 2004, according to the report of the bipartisan Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. That CIA reversal came roughly a year after Bush’s interview with Polish television.

    The intelligence commission, though appointed by Bush, included several Democrats including co-chair Charles Robb, a former senator and governor from Virginia. Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel to Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, was “of counsel” to the commission. One of the Republican commissioners was Sen. John McCain, Bush’s opponent in the 2000 Republican presidential primaries.

    ‘Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda Ties.’

    The ad quotes Bush as saying, ‘There’s no question Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties.’ Bush said that September 17, 2003, after months of fruitless searching for evidence of WMD’s in Iraq.

    However, the full quote shows Bush also made clear that he was not claiming that Saddam had any connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In fact, he was knocking down a suggestion made four days earlier by Vice President Cheney, who said on NBC’s Meet The Press that it is ‘not surprising that people make that connection’ when asked why so many Americans believed Saddam was involved in the attacks.

    Bush, Sept. 17, 2003: We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th . What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Sarawak, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He’s the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He’s a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.

    Since the word ‘ties’ can cover any connection, however weak, Bush was in fact stating the truth. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission later cited reports of several “friendly contacts” between Saddam and Osama bin Laden over the years, and cited one report that in 1999 Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a ‘safe haven,’ which bin Laden refused, preferring to remain in Afghanistan. But nothing substantial came of the contacts. The commission said: ‘The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.’

    ‘We Will, in Fact, be Greeted as Liberators’

    Cheney is quoted as saying, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, ‘We will in fact, be greeted as liberators… I think it will go relatively quickly… [in] weeks rather than months.’

    Those quotes are actually from two separate interviews, and they do give a rosy prediction that failed to include the bloody insurrection and resistance that continues to this day.

    The first Cheney quote comes from an NBC Meet the Press interview March 16, 2003. The full quote makes clear – as the ad’s blurb does not – that Cheney is stating his own ‘belief.’ Thus, the statement would be true if that’s what Cheney actually believed at the time.

    Cheney, March 16, 2003: Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . .

    Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

    Cheney: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

    The second quoted fragment is from another interview the same day on CBS’s Face The Nation . The full quote shows Cheney qualified his prediction of quick victory, by saying the ‘really challenging part’ may come in the ‘aftermath’ of a quick military victory. That turned out to be quite accurate.

    Cheney, March 16, 2003: I’m confident that our troops will be successful, and I think it’ll go relatively quickly, but we can’t…

    Q: Weeks?

    Cheney: …we can’t count on that.

    Q: Months?

    Cheney: Weeks rather than months. There’s always the possibility of–of complications that you can’t anticipate, but I’m–I have great confidence in our troops. The men and women who serve in our military today are superb. Our capabilities as a force are the finest the world has ever known. They’re very ably led by General Tommy Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld. And so I have great confidence in the conduct of the military campaign. The really challenging part of it to some extent may come in the–in the aftermath once the military segment is over and we move to try and stand up a new government and–and turn over to the Iraqi people the responsibilities to their nation.

    US, British and other coalition forces invaded Iraq March 20, and on May 1 the US declared an end to ‘major combat operations.’ At that time 139 US armed forces personnel had been killed. But 1773 more died after that, plus five civilian employees of the Defense Department, according to official Pentagon figures as of Sept. 26, 2005. By that measure the ‘aftermath’ has been more than a dozen times deadlier to the US military than the initial combat phase.

    ‘We Know Where [the WMDs] are.’

    The ad quotes Defense Secretary Rumsfeld as saying ‘We know where [the WMDs] are’ on March 30, 2003 – at a time when US forces were within 65 miles of Baghdad.

    This quote doesn’t look much different even in full context. Rumsfeld was reacting to a question about why no weapons of mass destruction had been found, and he said US and coalition forces didn’t yet control the areas where weapons “were dispersed.”

    Q: And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

    Rumsfeld, May 30, 2003: Not at all. If you think — let me take that, both pieces — the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

    Subsequent events have proved Rumsfeld wrong. Whether his statement was a lie or a mistake depends on whether or not he knew at the time that the weapons weren’t there.

    ‘[Saddam] is Actively Pursuing a Nuclear Weapon.’

    This quote is from Condoleezza Rice on September 8, 2002, months before the war began, in an interview with CNN. Rice was then Bush’s National Security Adviser and later became Secretary of State.

    Q: Based on what you know right now, how close is Saddam Hussein’s government — how close is that government to developing a nuclear capability?

    Rice, September 8, 2002: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance — into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to — high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.

    We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.

    The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

    What Rice said then is an accurate summation of what the US Intelligence community was saying at the time. Here’s what the bipartisan Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction said last March, after a year-long study:

    Commission on Intelligence Capabilities, March 31, 2005: On the brink of war, and in front of the whole world, the United States government asserted that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, had biological weapons and mobile biological weapon production facilities, and had stockpiled and was producing chemical weapons. All of this was based on the assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community. And not one bit of it could be confirmed when the war was over.

    Looking back, it is now clear that much of what is quoted in this ad was, even in context, false or misleading. To say Bush and the others “lied,” however, requires evidence that they knew the intelligence they were getting was wrong. The unanimous finding of the Intelligence Commission argues against that idea.


    Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, Office of the White House Press Secretary, 29 May 2003.

    Report to the President , Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, 31 March 2005.

    Remarks by the President after meeting with Members of the Congressional Conference Committee on Energy Legislation, Office of the White House Press, Secretary 17 Sep 2003.

    The 9/11 Commission Report, Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 22 July 2004.

    ‘Interview with Vice President Cheney,’ Meet the Press, NBC, 13 Mar 2003.

    AS OF: Sep 26, 2005, 1000 a.m. EDT, US Department of Defense, 26 Sep 2005.

    ‘Donald Rumsfeld’ This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC (Transcript) 30 Mar 2003.

    ‘Interview with Condoleezza Rice,’ CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, 8 Sep 2002.
    Related Articles
    Bush’s ’16 Words’ on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn’t Lying
    Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.”


  35. Hopefully

    Travnam, you sound like a lawyer. So you’re saying he’s free on a technicality? Shades of slick willie! Let’s call him “slick bush”

  36. quotequeen

    A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood.
    William Shenstone

  37. Eli Cohen

    Is Cheney betting on Economic Collapse?

    By Mike Whitney

    07/04/06 “Information Clearing House” — — Wouldn’t you like to know where Dick Cheney puts his money? Then you’d know whether his “deficits don’t matter” claim is just baloney or not.

    Well, as it turns out, Kiplinger Magazine ran an article based on Cheney’s financial disclosure statement and, sure enough, found out that the VP is lying to the American people for the umpteenth time. Deficits do matter and Cheney has invested his money accordingly.

    The article is called “Cheney’s betting on bad news” and provides an account of where Cheney has socked away more than $25 million. While the figures may be estimates, the investments are not. According to Tom Blackburn of the Palm Beach Post, Cheney has invested heavily in “a fund that specializes in short-term municipal bonds, a tax-exempt money market fund and an inflation protected securities fund. The first two hold up if interest rates rise with inflation. The third is protected against inflation.”

    Cheney has dumped another (estimated) $10 to $25 million in a European bond fund which tells us that he is counting on a steadily weakening dollar. So, while working class Americans are loosing ground to inflation and rising energy costs, Darth Cheney will be enhancing his wealth in “Old Europe”. As Blackburn sagely notes, “Not all ‘bad news’ is bad for everybody.”

    This should put to rest once and for all the foolish notion that the “Bush Economic Plan” is anything more than a scam aimed at looting the public till. The whole deal is intended to shift the nation’s wealth from one class to another. It’s also clear that Bush-Cheney couldn’t have carried this off without the tacit approval of the thieves at the Federal Reserve who engineered the low-interest rate boondoggle to put the American people to sleep while they picked their pockets.

    Reasonable people can dispute that Bush is “intentionally” skewering the dollar with his lavish tax cuts, but how does that explain Cheney’s portfolio?

    It doesn’t. And, one thing we can say with metaphysical certainty is that the miserly Cheney would never plunk his money into an investment that wasn’t a sure thing. If Cheney is counting on the dollar tanking and interest rates going up, then, by Gawd, that’s what’ll happen.

    The Bush-Cheney team has racked up another $3 trillion in debt in just 6 years. The US national debt now stands at $8.4 trillion dollars while the trade deficit has ballooned to $800 billion nearly 7% of GDP.

    This is lunacy. No country, however powerful, can maintain these staggering numbers. The country is in hock up to its neck and has to borrow $2.5 billion per day just to stay above water. Presently, the Fed is expanding the money supply and buying back its own treasuries to hide the hemorrhaging from the public. Its utter madness.

    Last month the trade deficit climbed to $70 billion. More importantly, foreign central banks only purchased a meager $47 billion in treasuries to shore up our ravenous appetite for cheap junk from China.

    Do the math! They’re not investing in America anymore. They are decreasing their stockpiles of dollars. We’re sinking fast and Cheney and his pals are manning the lifeboats while the public is diverted with gay marriage amendments and “American Celebrity”.

    The American manufacturing sector has been hollowed out by cutthroat corporations who’ve abandoned their country to make a fast-buck in China or Mexico. The $3 trillion housing (equity) bubble is quickly loosing air while the anemic dollar continues to sag. All the signs indicate that the economy is slowing at the same time that energy prices continue to rise.

    This is the onset of stagflation; the dreaded combo of a slowing economy and inflation.

    Did Americans really think they’d be spared the same type of economic colonization that has been applied throughout the developing world under the rubric of “neoliberalism”?

    Well, think again. The American economy is barrel-rolling towards earth and there are only enough parachutes for Cheney and the gang.

    The country has lost 3 million jobs from outsourcing since Bush took office; more than 200,000 of those are the high-paying, high-tech jobs that are the life’s-blood of every economy.

    Consider this from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) June edition of Foreign Affairs, the Bible of globalists and plutocrats:

    “Between 2000 and 2003 alone, foreign firms built 60,000manufacturing plants in China. European chemical companies, Japanese carmakers, and US industrial conglomerates are all building factories in China to supply export markets around the world. Similarly, banks, insurance companies, professional-service firms, and IT companies are building R&D;and service centers in India to support employees, customers, and production worldwide.” (“The Globally integrated Enterprise” Samuel Palmisano, Foreign Affairs page 130)

    “60,000manufacturing plants” in 3 years?!?

    “Banks, insurance companies, professional-service firms, and IT companies”?

    No job is safe. American elites and corporate tycoons are loading the boats and heading for foreign shores. The only thing they’re leaving behind is the insurmountable debt that will be shackled to our children into perpetuity and the carefully arranged levers of a modern police-surveillance state.

    Welcome to Bush’s 21st Century gulag; third world luxury in a Guantanamo-type setting.

    Take another look at Cheney’s investment strategy; it tells the whole ugly story. Interest rates are going up, the middle class is going down, and the poor dollar is headed for the dumpster. The country is not simply teetering on the brink of financial collapse; it is being thrust headfirst by the blackguards in office and their satrapies at Federal Reserve.


    Your points are well taken, indeed Lord Bush and the boys are imploding the economy on purpose, in order to bring the new Amereo online, probably as early as this January.

    Both China and Japan have to infuse up to 3.5 billion F.R.N.’s daily into the doomed U.S.econemy in order to keep the good ship lowly pop afloat.

    Israel no longer accepts U.S.aid in denominations of dollars, talking about biting the hand that feeds you, THE DOLLAR IS TOLIET PAPER.

    The article you posted was spot on, the unfathomable part, was scrolling down and seeing the psychotic posts and machinations of Traveleh!

    This person is a moron! Bush has committed high crimes and treason against the American people by using corporations to spy on them, destroyed Due process, trashed the constitution , created a Police state, probably is complicent in 911, driven the economy into the ground, gone through more advisors and cabinet members than Carter has pills and the hit’s just keep on coming.

    The ominous question is, what will the traitor do for an encore before he leaves office and flees to Paraguay with Cheney? I shutter to think.

    Traveleh, I would love to meet you, sit down, perhaps have dinner, in an attempt to understand what goes through your deluded short-circuited little mind. I am curious, how do you formulate such psychotic non sense, are you functional?
    How much Fox news do you listen to? Are you a ditto head? Are you related to Bush and Cheney? What grade level do you read and write at? Have you benefited financially from this neocon regime? Where you abused as a child? Are you now taking or have ever taken serotonin reuptake inhibitors?? Do you drink tap water with fluoride in it?

    Id like to test you for heavy metal poisoning, Is there a history of mental disease in your family, have aliens have kidnapped you? Good Lord man what is wrong with you!! I am in a quandary?

    There has to be some logical explanation for how one person could be so absolutely in de NILE.

    Traveleh I hate to burst your inflated ego but you didn’t win any argument on points, your points can all be refuted by going back to the teleological inception of the plan to invade Iraq which was conceived in 1998 BY Lord Darth Cheney, as expressed in the penac documents and of course operation Northwood’s.

    Plans were already on table, all you need to do is read the documents as it describes a false flag event such as 911, which would coalesce small minded, nationalistic idiots, like yourself, into supporting the imperialist invasion and the raping, robbing and pillaging of Iraq, its recourses and its people.

    Multi national corporations and Cheney’s Halliburton, were already craving Iraq up, along with their no bid contracts, along time before the 911 fairy tale ever happened, for the benefit of the hapless idiots, who believe that ill conceived story.

    Tatuaje your points and arguments were lucid and cogent, however, were ex post facto in nature. In order to understand where we are at, it is necessary to go back to at least to 1997 and the penac documents.You are intelligent Sir and awake! Hats off to you, you made Traveleh look like what he or she probably is, a thought controlled minion of Lord Limbaugh, with a small mind.

    As Ziegner brezinski said in his book the Grand Chess board “The best place to hide the truth from the American People is to put it in a book, because they will never read it”.

    ELI, you implied that the economy is being deep sixed on purpose, you are indeed correct, as we will all see very shortly, and I mean very shortly!

    The new North American currency the Amero, is warehoused and getting ready to come online, possibly as soon as Jan of 09.
    This along with your Real National ID card, will give new meaning to the Bible when it says “no one could buy or sell without the mark of the beast or the number of his name”.

    Get those 9- digit socialist slave numbers ready, the government has given you and make sure your paperzz are in order please, your little world is getting ready to change, the BEAST is giving it his last shot.

    Most like Traveleh, will go along with this plan like the lemming’s they really are, letting themselves be biochipped and vaccinated in response to perhaps another false flag event, which will only further accelerate and expedite the NEW WORLD ORDER COMING TO A TOWN NEAR YOU IN 09





    Bush is a dictator in the classical sense; his excusive orders are probably the best case for impeachment I know of. You might wish to edify yourself Travelah if that is at all possible. You neocon spin master
    Click this link
    Bush has committed treason against the constitution and therefore meets the requirements in Article 2 section 4.

    1) The Offense of Lying and Inducing America to Support a War
    Lord Bush and Lord Cheney intentionally misled the Congress and the American people regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, and intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the war against Iraq in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371

    2) The Offense of Torture in Violation of U.S. Laws and Treaties
    Lord Bush and Lord Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the “Federal Torture Act,” Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention.

    3) The Offense of Wiretapping Surveillance in Defiance of the Law
    Lord Bush and Lord Cheney admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805.


    Least you howl with mockery because that’s all you have, let me diffuse you now Travelah That was a typo, Executive Orders is what was meant

  42. Eli Cohen

    Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean there’s no one out to get you…








Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.