Now that Saddam Hussain has received "justice" or what passes for justice in Iraq, how about letting Mr. Bush get into the act. I don't mean we should congratulate him for bringing Saddam in front of that court, I'm talking about bringing him in front of one of our courts. He broke the law. Why isn't he being tried? He lied to the American people when he told us that they had incontrovertible evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. If I filed a complaint against someone and said that they were making bombs in their basement, and the police raided the house, and a few got shot because he thought they were under a "home invasion" and a few died because of it, wouldn't I as the perpetrator of that fictitious report be tried in a court of law for the murders of those policemen that acted on my faulty information? You can bet that I would be. That would be crime. The same crime that Bush committed, along with Cheney, and Powell and all the others that did their level best to insure that they were believed by the people of the United States.
When we invaded Iraq, we did it because the administration made a case that they were a "clear and present" danger to the people of the United States. After it was found that Saddam Hussain was not a "clear and present" danger to the U.S., we still prosecuted the war, disbanded the Army and police forces and let the nation drift into anarchy. The facts are that we were responsible for killing more Iraqi citizens than Saddam Hussain. Who should be held responsible for this? Should Saddam Hussain be held responsible for the death and destruction that President Bush unleashed on his country because he would not follow the U.N. mandates to the letter? What about after the invasion, after we found out that he did not possess the weapons that Bush said he had. Why did we continue to prosecute the war? That question has still not been answered and we are still prosecuting the war. Is it legal to invade a country under false circumstances and then to occupy it, even after we realized that we had invaded it in error? Don't the American people realize that the rest of the world sees that as threatening? Are we supposed to be proud of doing that?
The President also says that Saddam Hussain and his government were sympathetic to Al Queida. The leadership of Iraq was Sunni Muslim. The leadership of Al Queida is Shia Muslim. They do not get along. The Iranians are predominantly Shia. The new government of Iraq is predominantly Shia. What have we gained. Saddam Hussain did not have a relationship with the Shia of Al Queida. He was afraid of what their influence would do to his secular and largely Sunni government. The President lied about that too? Should he not be held accountable?
He has changed the rules of warfare, tapped our phones, instituted over four hundred "signing statements" and backed that with the "Unitary Power of the Executive Branch" which has been disputed by scores of constitutional lawyers. Should he be charged with that? He has ignored the people of New Orleans and put their fate in the hands of a man who's last job was that of a horse auctioneer. He refused to use Federal Troops to help thousands of mostly African American citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas because to do so might be a violation of "Posse Comitatus" the use of Federal troops by the Federal government in the US. Meanwhile, he had no trouble tapping American citizen's phones and conversations without a warrant. Why this 'Double Standard".
This President needs to have Special Prosecutor appointed to review the things that he has done since he has taken office. This should be done at the earliest possible time, irregardless of what party control the Congress. These are crimes and as crimes they should be investigated. If the President was acting within the law, than he should by all means be vindicated. I would think that the President would welcome that chance. We should also leave Iraq and pay reparations to a people that have been victimized irregardless of the reason. They had no WMD's and did not conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States. We should pull out troops out of Iraq and use them to find Osama Bin Laden. Justice should be administered. That is the American way. To Saddam Hussain, to Osama Bin Laden, and even to our own who break the law.
Could you imagine what would have happened if Bill Clinton had done what George Bush did?
When we invaded Iraq, we did it because the administration made a case that they were a "clear and present" danger to the people of the United States. After it was found that Saddam Hussain was not a "clear and present" danger to the U.S., we still prosecuted the war, disbanded the Army and police forces and let the nation drift into anarchy. The facts are that we were responsible for killing more Iraqi citizens than Saddam Hussain. Who should be held responsible for this? Should Saddam Hussain be held responsible for the death and destruction that President Bush unleashed on his country because he would not follow the U.N. mandates to the letter? What about after the invasion, after we found out that he did not possess the weapons that Bush said he had. Why did we continue to prosecute the war? That question has still not been answered and we are still prosecuting the war. Is it legal to invade a country under false circumstances and then to occupy it, even after we realized that we had invaded it in error? Don't the American people realize that the rest of the world sees that as threatening? Are we supposed to be proud of doing that?
The President also says that Saddam Hussain and his government were sympathetic to Al Queida. The leadership of Iraq was Sunni Muslim. The leadership of Al Queida is Shia Muslim. They do not get along. The Iranians are predominantly Shia. The new government of Iraq is predominantly Shia. What have we gained. Saddam Hussain did not have a relationship with the Shia of Al Queida. He was afraid of what their influence would do to his secular and largely Sunni government. The President lied about that too? Should he not be held accountable?
He has changed the rules of warfare, tapped our phones, instituted over four hundred "signing statements" and backed that with the "Unitary Power of the Executive Branch" which has been disputed by scores of constitutional lawyers. Should he be charged with that? He has ignored the people of New Orleans and put their fate in the hands of a man who's last job was that of a horse auctioneer. He refused to use Federal Troops to help thousands of mostly African American citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas because to do so might be a violation of "Posse Comitatus" the use of Federal troops by the Federal government in the US. Meanwhile, he had no trouble tapping American citizen's phones and conversations without a warrant. Why this 'Double Standard".
This President needs to have Special Prosecutor appointed to review the things that he has done since he has taken office. This should be done at the earliest possible time, irregardless of what party control the Congress. These are crimes and as crimes they should be investigated. If the President was acting within the law, than he should by all means be vindicated. I would think that the President would welcome that chance. We should also leave Iraq and pay reparations to a people that have been victimized irregardless of the reason. They had no WMD's and did not conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States. We should pull out troops out of Iraq and use them to find Osama Bin Laden. Justice should be administered. That is the American way. To Saddam Hussain, to Osama Bin Laden, and even to our own who break the law.
Could you imagine what would have happened if Bill Clinton had done what George Bush did?
