Impeachment investigation of Bush a fantasy? With Bush's plunging approval rating, increasingly weak underpinnings in the American (and world) economy, (crude oil is $58.00/bbl today), an unsustainable bubble in real estate, and a "reserve" currency "value" that is dependent on the Chinses government continuing to postpone the day when it decides to cut it's losses by divesting it's U.S. dollar reserves, and Bush fiscal/foreign/tax policy aggravated federal and trade deficits menacing any potential for improving support for the purchasing power of the dollar, the U.S. is 17 months and one mid-term congressional election away from the possibility of a shift in the balance of political power in congress.
Timing, of course, is crucial, but there is inertia in the direction of poorer economic times ahead for an increasing number of potential voters, potentially aggravated by a decline in the value of their real estate holdings, a higher risk of job loss, and 17 more months of sustained higher energy prices, and much, much, more, if an additional one trillion dollars in new trade deficit accumulation, coupled with the need of the federal treasury to fund 17 more months of federal deficit spending by attempting to attract $650+ billion in foreign capital inflows for T-Bill purchases (the same category of "worthless IOU's" that Bush claims are the only "asset" in the SSI trust fund), has a negative effect on dollar exchange rates, vs. commodities and/or foreign currencies, not to mention that it is no longer up to the Fed when to stop raising interest rates, because foreign demand for new issues of T-Bills will determine rates.
In addition, aside from Karl Roves ability to use any tactics to win election campaigns, (ask John McCain about that) what have Bush administration officials and Republican congressional leaders,(and those who support them), been right about?
Folks, this scenario is setting us up for one of two things (or both); an implosion of the political power of these thugs, (see the article in the bottom quote box for the latest revelation of their judgment in dealing with the few "poodle" allies that they still have not completely alienated), or another 9/11 style, "terror" incident, coinciding with and dampening the effect of whatever political setback for them acts as a catalyst. (When was the last time that the color coded terror alert "swatch" has been elevated since the election last november?) If they botch the smokescreen of a contrived "terror" incident designed to increase their waning grip on political power, we may see a convergence of currency and political crises.
One thing is certain; there will no respite from Bush aggravated, economic, military, and morale decline, along with further erosion in the constitutionally protected rights of residents in a country that practices perpetual and "pre-emptive" war.
Each of us should look at our own track record of the last few years. Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support the bulk of the Bush agenda?
What have you been right about? Could you have done a better job, personally, of supporting the 1700 American troops who have died, or the thousands that are adjusting to life as amputees? Did you keep your personal commitment to advocate sending them to war, "only as a last resort". Did Bush ?
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1111
McClellan: If You Opposed The War You Don’t Count
At today’s press briefing, White House spokesman Scott McClellan was asked about the letter Rep. John Conyers sent to the President asking questions about the Downing Street Memo. The letter has been signed by 112 members of Congress and 550,000 concerned citizens.
QUESTION: On another topic, has the president or anyone else from the administration responded to the letter sent last month by Congressman John Conyers and signed by dozens of members of the House of Representatives regarding the Downing Street memo? Has the president or anyone else responded?
MCCLELLAN: Not that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: Why not?
MCCLELLAN: Why not? <h4>Because I think that this is an individual who voted against the war in the first place</h4> and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed.
So remember, if you opposed the war in Iraq don’t bother asking questions. You don’t count anymore.
|
Quote:
<h2 class="title"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1114" title="Permanent Link: NYT Pulls A Gannon on Downing Street">NYT Pulls A Gannon on Downing Street</a></h2>
<p>At <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050616-5.html">yesterday’s press briefing</a>, Scott McClellan <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1111">made the assertion</a> that if you opposed the Iraq War, well, you don’t really count. The President doesn’t care what you have to say. Apparently <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/17downing.ready.html">neither does the New York Times</a>. The stalwart of the “liberal media” covered <a href="http://www.truthout.org/cblog.shtml">the Conyers hearings</a> with the headline “Antiwar <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/17downing.ready.html">group says leaked British memo</a> shows Bush misled public on his war plans.” The lede to the article makes a point of stressing the type of people behind these dubious hearings:</p>
<blockquote><p>Opponents of the war in Iraq held an unofficial hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday to draw attention to a leaked British government document that they say proves their case that President Bush misled the public about his war plans in 2002 and distorted intelligence to support his policy.
</p></blockquote>
<p>It isn’t until later in the article that the NYT bothers to mention that the hearings were being chaired by no less than the ranking minority member on the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). </p>
<p>The paper goes on to say that “the hearing and other events…reflected antiwar sentiment re-energized” by <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1078">the British memos</a> and as well as plummeting support for the war in Iraq. Of course, they don’t bring up the fact that <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=807215#3">the current state of the war in Iraq</a> is another possible explanation for the “re-energized” antiwar sentiment.</p>
<p>Funny enough, the article does point out how McClellan responded to inquiries about the hearing. But then they play his lapdog one more time: “Activists have accused mainstream news organizations of playing down the document’s significance, even as antiwar bloggers have seized upon it as evidence.”<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200506160002"> Silly activists</a>.</p>
<p>One of the witnesses at the hearing was John Bonifaz. A constitutional lawyer, Bonifaz is the <a href="http://www.nvri.org/about/who.shtml">founder and general counsel</a> for the <a href="http://www.nvri.org/index.html">National Voting Rights Institute</a>. Furthermore, he used to work with the <a href="http://www.crp.org/">Center for Responsive Politics</a> and his writings have been published in both the Yale Law and Policy Review as well as the Columbia Law Review. How did the NYT sum up all his accomplishments? “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/17downing.ready.html">John Bonifaz, anti-war activist</a>.”</p>
</div>
|
Attempt to recognize who the fuck we are dealing with here...... evidently, the British administration is finally starting to......
Quote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=647397
US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
17 June 2005
American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.
Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.
Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.
But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."
Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets.
Britain, which has no stockpiles of the weapons, ratified the convention, but the US did not.
The confirmation that US officials misled British ministers led to new questions last night about the value of the latest assurances by the US. Mr Cohen said there were rumours that the firebombs were used in the US assault on the insurgent stronghold in Fallujah last year, claims denied by the US. He is tabling more questions seeking assurances that the weapons were not used against civilians.
Mr Ingram did not explain why the US officials had misled him, but the US and British governments were accused of a cover-up. The Iraq Analysis Group, which campaigned against the war, said the US authorities only admitted the use of the weapons after the evidence from reporters had become irrefutable.
Mike Lewis, a spokesman for the group, said: "The US has used internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to use, and has then apparently lied to UK officials, showing how little weight the UK carries in influencing American policy."
He added: "Evidence that Mr Ingram had given false information to Parliament was publicly available months ago. He has waited until after the election to admit to it - a clear sign of the Government's embarrassment that they are doing nothing to restrain their own coalition partner in Iraq."
The US State Department website admitted in the run-up to the election that US forces had used MK77s in Iraq. Protests were made by MPs, but it was only this week that Mr Ingram confirmed the reports were true.
Mike Moore, the Liberal Democrat defence spokes-man, said: "It is very serious that this type of weapon was used in Iraq, but this shows the US has not been completely open with the UK. We are supposed to have a special relationship.
"It has also taken two months for the minister to clear this up. This is welcome candour, but it will raise fresh questions about how open the Government wished to be... before the election."
The MK77 bombs, an evolution of the napalm used in Vietnam and Korea, carry kerosene-based jet fuel and polystyrene so that, like napalm, the gel sticks to structures and to its victims. <h4>The bombs lack stabilising fins, making them far from precise.</h4>
|