Here's what I think could happen in 2008, some good, some bad, and a whole lot of ugly.
For purposes of stimulating some out-of-the-box thinking, I've come up with some scenarios that may seem over-the-top, but I hope the extreme visions might provide lessons for action.
Let's start with the more positive 2008 scenario:
1. The House Judiciary Committee votes to begin impeachment hearings against the Vice President; Cheney resigns, "for reasons of health," before he has to testify.
2. Bush nominates Condi as Vice President; Congress, anxious not to leave the post vacant, agrees, led by weak-kneed Democrats and by Republicans who realize that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, third in line, potentially could become President if something were to happen to Bush before a new V.P. had been installed.
3. Bush pardons Cheney for all crimes he "may have committed" while Vice President.
4. The pardoning of Cheney provides the tipping point for an angry public. Bush is impeached, convicted, removed. Rice becomes President and nominates Bob Gates as Vice President, who is quickly confirmed by Congress.
5. Rice pardons Bush for all crimes he "may have committed" ("the country needs to move on...blah, blah"). (She appears to be unaware that the International Court of Justice does not honor such pardons, nor can her action stop the numerous civil suits against Bush.)
6. As a result of all the pardoning, a deteriorating situation in Iraq, and an economy heading deeper into recession, public approval of Republicans sinks to new low.
7. Democrats in November sweep into the White House and to huge majorities in both houses of Congress. Obstructionist filibusters by the GOP in the Senate are no more.
8. Following the departure of Bush from office, tens of millions march throughout the world in joyous celebration, many holding signs saying "Welcome Back, America, to the World of Decency and Reality."
9. At the same time strong anti-terrorist steps are taken, Congress starts undoing the most egregious, unconstitutional policies and laws from the CheneyBush era. Habeas corpus is restored, the most extremist sections of the Patriot Act are removed, citizens' privacy rights are respected (warrantless domestic spying, sneak-and-peek and black-bag jobs, etc., are outlawed).
10. Congress and the Executive Branch work with the United Nations, NATO, League of Arab States, European Union, African Union, etc. to create a peacekeeping force of mostly Arab countries to help police the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, and to aid in helping resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Al-Qaida finds it more difficult to recruit young jihadists and suicide bombers.
Well, OK, a lot of that might not take place. But a good share of what's suggested above could happen with enough activism on our parts, momentum and good fortune.
Now let's look at a possible alternative 2008 scenario:
1. CheneyBush, using the justification that Iran is obtaining "knowledge" of how to build an atomic bomb, launch with Israel a massive air assault on Iran's nuclear research facilities and missile silos. The corporate mainstream media, as it did prior to the invasion of Iraq, will have prepared the public for such a move by uncritically passing on Administration lies as fact. Iran's military and political power in the Greater Middle East is in shambles for at least a decade. CheneyBush move to install pro-American, pro-free market politicians in these Greater Middle East nations; insurgencies organize in those countries against corrupt, pro-Western rulers.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
If Bush isn't impeached for the illegal invasion of Iraq against international law and for torture, when it is clearly within the power of the citizens of the United States to impeach him through their Congressional representatives if they want to, how THEN could one STILL consider American civilians to be innocent?
Wouldn't they then, through their collective disregard for foreigners and of their nations treaties and solemn word to foreigners, not be better regarded as inidividually carrying a rebuttable presumption of moral guilt not innocence? Would not the facts require that?
And if they are morally guilty and complicit in allowing illegal and aggressive invasions and torture to go unchecked by their laws and the laws of the rest of humankind, isn't the rest of humankind morally and logically entitled to deal with them as such?
If democracies get they governments they deserve and American democracy inflicts its governments and Presidents and their lawlessness on foreigners, is terrorism against Americans then morally justified in order to reality check Americans back to an awareness of the reasons why there were international agreements (laws) against aggressive invasions and torture in the first place?
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 7:06:51 PM
It is precisely because it is clear from your article that you are across so much of the political and legal processes. AND because you STILL wrote about "innocent" (American) civilians, in your negative scenario, that I put this question to you and others. Which of course you may treat as rhetorical or otherwise.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 7:11:33 PM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
