Well, you're unlikely to have heard about it yet in the US corporate media, but such a record hit the international news and the internet a couple of weeks ago. There were a couple of short AP stories, a Christian Science Monitor story, and finally last weekend an LA Times story, but not much else.
Not much else, despite the fact that what this White house Memo reveals are actions that led to a lot more than one man being shot.
And, can I just ask, what kind of society puts a shotgun in the hands of a man who has misused missiles, tanks, napalm, white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and the service men and women of the US military?
Bush said, according to the memo: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten.' But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway."
Does that sound like Bush was trying for peace or trying to legitimize a war?
Bush also said this: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance air craft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them he would be in breach."
What these guys wouldn't do for peace!
To help push this latest smoking gun into the media, please go to
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/613
There is no more serious high crime or misdemeanor than taking a nation to war on the basis of lies. There is little dispute, except on the far right, that Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses. But there is a dispute over whether we should try to impeach them.
That's a situation that should scare us. We know that it is our duty as citizens to demand impeachment, yet we are willing to set that aside in order to play the role of political pundits. It is not our place to effectively remove impeachment from the US Constitution, no matter what any pundit says. But the case for impeachment can be made on the liberal pundits' own terms.
I hear three main objections. First, we should focus on ending the war. But more than anything else, what is driving opposition to the war is awareness of the lies used to justify it. Investigations into those lies and the spying and leaking and other related crimes is the shortest route toward ending the war. Bush and Cheney have made clear that they will not end this war while they're in office. And we also need to think about preventing the next war and future wars.
Second, I hear that we must wait until the Democrats (or a combination of Democrats and independents) win a majority in Congress. But why should we wait until then to talk about impeachment and not wait until then to talk about every other up-hill fight, including ending the war? This is the time to fight for what's right. And this is an off-year election. People must be given a dramatic reason to turn out and vote. With 85 percent of Democrats wanting to vote for pro-impeachment candidates (at least in Pennsylvania, the only state that's been polled), this can be an election issue. And it must be an issue beforehand if the election is to give it a boost. If we elect a bunch of Democrats who have not been forced to support impeachment during the campaigns, the pundits will immediately announce that 2008 is just around the corner, and now is, once again, not the right time for impeachment.
Third, I hear that Cheney is worse than Bush. But we're very unlikely to see a serious investigation of Bush that does not incriminate Cheney. And Cheney is running things now, so we'd be better off with him up-front; he's even more unpopular than Bush.
I also hear that impeachment is too partisan and political and traumatic (as if life under Bush-Cheney is not traumatic). Well, impeachment was those things when the Republicans impeached Clinton against the will of the people. Now, a majority favors impeachment, and there is no law that says we can't win over 15 Republicans and all of the Democrats to make it happen.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
