Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Impeachable offenses should be discussed early and often

In answer to a pro-government comment (or perhaps more anti-Congress) I posted the following on the the Tribstar board:

Dear Sir or Madam,

We should have been talking impeachment from the time Mr. Bush said we would not abide by the ABM Treaty (Anti-Ballistic Missile) and perhaps if there was healthy debate about a unilateral (though called coalition) illegal invasion of a sovereign state Mr. Bush might not have pursued this impeachable offense.

I kept quiet on these acts myself because I would tend not to impeach on these counts. However the "above the law" actions did not stop there. This guy mocked another international treaty the U.S. signed on to and this time saying the U.S. could torture was too much for me to keep quiet. This act puts U.S. troops already in harm's way in danger of being tortured as retaliation. Not just in Iraq but anywhere by anyone. I would definately impeach our mock monarch on this count.

I would also impeach this clown for violating the fourth amendment. Perhaps originally meant to save us from WMDs, the reason given is the liberation of a foreign land. First, I would impeach if he were trying to save this country because it would be like cutting out a man's heart to ease his high blood pressure. In this case it turns out he expects us to cut out our hearts to ease the blood pressure of another man. In "Deranged, Disconnected, and Dangerous", Paul Craig Roberts points out that these people have lost it. He writes, "Bush gave a delusional speech that shows he is detached from reality." And Joshua Frank writes, on the smearing of Paul Craig Roberts.

In a recent article titled "Bush Signs Bill That Didn't Pass Congress" we see once again that this guy has absolutely no respect for the U.S. Constitution, the men who wrote it, and the people who died and are dying to protect it. The difference between the Bill that passed Congress and the one signed is about $2 billion. Now throw another 2 billion my way an perhaps I'll keep quiet on this.

But where we would all like to give me $2 billion dollars, we should question the $1.2 billion given to foreign nations as their bribe to help us in Afghanistan. Most of my $2 billion would be spent in the U.S. Can we say the same of Pakistan, Jordon, and the others?

It looks like Paul and BuSHITes have a bit of a row going. In his latest article, Paul mentions the massacre by marines in Iraq. (It has a link to the Time story.) I'm the guy that didn't believe in the Nuremberg trials nor the trial for action at My Lai (the taking of Pinkville), but with all the "Guard" over in Iraq I fear they will do something worse than Abu Ghraib. Remember the militia is considered a group of free people and as such has the choice of participating or not in abhorrent actions. With freedom comes responsibility. If a soldier follows orders to kill illegally we should hang our Commander in Chief. Here's a question to ponder, if an order was given rather than just considered, to bomb journalists in Fallujah, should we hang Bush and the pilot if the pilot was Guard? When we see thousands of mistakes by the U.S. military, we have to start wondering if they are not mistakes. At the very least we must consider that the rest of the world has some very serious questions.

No comments: