Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

The problem that ails the US admin is rooted in the Iraq war. Was the decision to go to war right or wrong? The entire USA is talking about it now. The homes, offices, and bars are abuzz with competing arguments and people are coming to a conclusion that somehow mistakes were made and maybe the bush admin is incapable of correcting those mistakes. The outing of Valerie Plame was part of the effort to cover up the administration’s embarrassment over the WMD nonsense.

I am one of those who supported the war. Not because I believed in the WMD hoax or the democracy BS. Anyone who has learned a little about realpolitik from the pros knows how to pull the wool over eyes. The Bush admin did the same thing but never had the guts to plant some WMD to justify its apparent reason for war. Now they are taking a beating about the WMD hoax.

There were two very important reasons for the US to go this war. First, it was clear that the Sanctions that destabilized and weakened Iraq, were collapsing and it appeared that they will not remain tenable for a long time.

But the second and the most important reason, the US admin never came out and made it in public, was the most compelling one for people who knew the stakes in Iraq. The problem was that this reason alone would not have met public approval that the urgency of the US action required.

A little background first.
Iraq and Saddam after the 1991 war were slowly crumbling. The sanctions were making it difficult for the Saddam regime to keep a firm control over the government in Iraq and it was quite clear to the US admin in 1998 that some way had to be found to stabilize Iraq. But the problem was Saddam Hussein and there was no way that the US public would have accepted stabilizing of the Saddam government even in 1998.

While all this was still at the diplomatic level, the bin Laden group had some great successes in the ME. That created another set of problems for the US and Europeans. A terrorist group in isolation can be dealt with but if that group happens to have protection from some state, dealing with it becomes extremely difficult. It was feared that since Saddam is weakening with every passing day and it was constantly in conflict with Saudi Arabia, he would end up making a deal with Anti Saudi terrorist led by Bin Laden to regain lost prestige and political stability. Once the terrorist had a state for support around Levant, both Saudi and Israeli would be under immediate threat.

European also agreed with the US but they decided to stabilize the Saddam regime by pressing to remove sanctions. Europeans did not believe that a regime change in Iraq was possible from the outside. Bill Clinton did make a decision to formulate some effort to change the Saddam regime.

While the European wanted to remove sanctions to stabilize Iraq, the US wanted him out first, install a new regime, and then provide support for stability. Clinton got caught up in the stained dress and in Bosnia and the sanctions in Iraq continued to erode the Iraq government stability.

The Bush admin knew that the stained dress had disabled the Clinton admin and it was unable to do anything about Terrorism and Iraq. It became Bush’s task number one to find a way to get to Iraq as soon as possible.

911 provided that opportunity.

Now it was just a matter of selling the war against Iraq to the US public. That is where the US admin bungled. Instead of trying to invent the reason for the war, they should have made a better attempt in linking Iraq with the terrorism. I can understand the admin’s dilemma. This linkage was impossible in the absence of any hard links between Iraq and Bin Laden, there was no way the US public would have bought a war based on some postulations how real they may be for the US admin. Though, this theme was softly peddled to the US Public.

On top of all that the admin miscalculated in Iraq. The first and the biggest mistake was dismantling of the Iraqi army. The jobless army men provided the first wave of anti-US resistance and now it has been picked by several groups. The Bush admin is having difficulty in providing justification to its continued stay in Iraq.

The Dems in the CIA and in the bureaucracy want a revenge for the destruction and impeachment of Clinton Admin by the Republicans.
Irony: the war in Iraq has also destabilized the Bush Admin.
The charade continues and will most like bring down some members of the admin.


mirmir, Feroz
Sovereign Immunity does not apply. The POTUS cannot be indicted, but the VP can be.

I just wanted to record my disgust on this board; otherwise, reading anything about these arrogant fukks and war criminals makes my skin crawl. ughhh.

Re: # 5, # 8 and # 9

One great concept that the Founders of the U.S. wanted to make perfectly clear: No citizen is above the law, not even the president himself who remains accountable for (among other things) acts that might constitute a violation of Federal criminal law. The very limited and specific immunity that he enjoys is immunity for prosecution for acts committed in his official capacity. I can`t believe that any court would consider a criminal act by the president to be ``in his official capacity.`` The ``Sovereign Immunity`` principle deals with SUITS brought against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not suits or charges against individual officials of the government.

Watergate Convictions:

•one presidential resignation
•one vice-presidential resignation
•40 government officials indicted or jailed
•H.R. Haldeman & John Erlichman (White House staff) resigned 30April1973, subsequently jailed
•John Dean (White House legal counsel) sacked 30April1973, subsequently jailed
•John Mitchell, Attorney-General and Chairman of the Committee to Re-elect the President(CREEP) jailed
•Howard Hunt and G.Gordon Liddy (ex-White House staff), planned the Watergate break-in, both jailed
•Charles Colson, special counsel to the President jailed
•James McCord (Security Director of CREEP) jailed

Precedent for Immunizing Official, Presidential Acts -- BUT NO OTHERS.
The actual text of the Constitution does not grant immunity to a president, but the Supreme Court has declared that a president is absolutely immune from DAMAGES LIABILITY for his OFFICIAL, presidential acts. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). There is, however, no precedent for granting immunity to a president for alleged acts that
(1) cannot be official, presidential acts because they were committed before....election to the presidency,
(2) would not be official, presidential acts even if committed as alleged....after inauguration,
(3) would constitute an abuse of official power by a sitting president, and
(4) may constitute a violation of Federal criminal law.

mirmir

Re: # 8

Dear Mohammad Gill Sahib,

If my memory serves me, I believe President Nixon was not impeached by Congress in the watergate cover. He resigned under the threat of impeachment and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford.

Respectfully submitted,

BBA

Mr. behram:

You`re right. The impeachment was in progress and was predominantly against Nixon. Seeing the trend, he resigned. The day of the impeachment, I was in the U.S. on vacation and was flying out the same day.

Mohammad Gill

#11 Mirmir

``Watergate Convictions: •one vice-presidential resignation ``

Minor correction:

Vice President Spiro Agnew`s resignation was not related to Watergate. He had taken some bribes while he was governor of Maryland and his indictment came while he was vice-president. Nixon took that as an opportunity to let him go so that he can appoint Ford as his vice-president. His logic was that people will not dare to impeach and remove him because of very low expectations from Ford.

The country survived. It only proves that if the institutions are strong and people are evolved, presidents can come and go and republics survive.

Re: # 14
Pardesi...
You are absolutely correct in this. Thanks for the correction.
mirmir

Re: # 9 HP {``...The problem that ails the US admin is rooted in the Iraq war. ... somehow mistakes were made... bush admin is incapable of correcting... I am one of those who supported the war. ...``}

A friend of mine sums it up best. He begins with mocking the monkey trial that started in Iraq last week.

What gives this court the authority to try me, asks Saddam Hussain? Good question, my friend comments. The answer is plain: only the force of U.S. arms...that is to say, only the brute power of an invading army. ``I am the only lawful president of Iraq,`` he quotes Saddam, ``not a puppet put in by the Americans.`` Again, Saddam has a point. He stole the job all by himself. Not as the puppet of some foreign invader. ``How dare you pass judgment on me,`` he further quotes the former Iraqi dictator.

It is merely the latest in a long chain of blunders, my wise friend adds.

We are witnessing something remarkable in modern world history. A Great Power is rolling over. There is hardly an error chronicled in any history of imperial wars, he claims, that American forces have not committed in Iraq.

One of the pleasures of being the world’s super-power, I agree with my historian friend, is that you get to cut off the heads of your enemies, and you never have to say you’re sorry. Helagu Khan was a master at it. He took Baghdad the proper way. Nobody asked him any questions afterwards. Caesar, Ghenghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Stalin...all conquerors made a point of punishing those who stood against them. But the trial of Saddam Hussain is a first. It is the first time the former ruler of a conquered nation has gone on television...so that he may rally his people against the invader!

U.S. soldiers might have done better to treat him as Genghis Khan treated one of his enemies: pouring molten silver in his ear. Then at least he would not be on television pointing out the obvious to his compatriots; he is only on trial because the country was over-run by foreign troops.

Once again, according to my learned friend, history’s most incompetent empire is a victim of its own humbug.

It may be true that many Iraqis welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussain because he ruined their lives. He started two disastrous wars, against Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. Hundreds of thousand of Iraqis were killed and wounded. The country’s oil wealth was spent on weapons. In the 1990s, U.N. sanctions impoverished the country. Iraqis should have been living like the Saudis but instead, they had the standard of living of Sudan. As U.S. tanks rolled in Baghdad, they hoped their lives would now get better. Instead they got even worse. Imagine that… , the Anglo-Saxon imperial overlords have miraculously accomplished what seemed impossible when the war began; they have made Saddam’s rule seem to many Iraqis like the “good old days.”

The billions supposedly spent by the U.S. - much of it Iraqi oil money - produced few benefits. The country became a feeding trough for politically well-connected U.S. companies and individuals. ...Even the corruption desensitised Iraqis were shocked to find that almost the entire $1.3 billion procurement budget of the defense ministry had disappeared...Much of the Iraqi government exists only on paper. It is more of a racket than an administration. Its officials turn up only on payday. Elaborate bureaucratic procedures exist simply so that a bribe has to be paid to avoid them.

My wise friend goes on to assert that the U.S. actions in Iraq are not an “error” from a historical perspective. They are a necessity. Every great empire must extinguish itself somehow. Otherwise, we would still be ruled by Assyrians or Romans or Mongols. What Anglo-American forces are doing is merely a form of “suicidal statecraft,” as Zbigniew Brzezinski has suggested; that’s it, it is a way of cutting their own heads off.

Somehow, I agree with my wise friend. We are witness to a remarkable turning point in modern history. The chickens are coming home. America was waiting for the cows to come home. They didn`t, instead the chickens did.

...SR

Dear Inter-actors:

The following story from Yahoo!News is appropriate to the subject matter of the article. It contains the latest speculations on the CIA leak. According to it, the main characters under probe can be indicted including Vice President Dick Cheney. Whether any of them would be indicted is another matter.


Yahoo! News
Legal Problems Dog Bush`s Inner Circle

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press WriterSat Oct 22,10:13 AM ET

It`s a nightmare prospect that Republicans have trouble fathoming: legal problems that could drive some of the president`s most powerful aides from office.

A special prosecutor and grand jury are closing in on a deadline to decide whether to lodge criminal complaints against presidential adviser Karl Rove and White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter`` Libby in the outing of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.

If it comes to pass, administration officials and GOP consultants expect President Bush to turn to a few individuals to fill any void in his inner circle.

Among the candidates are go-to Republicans whom Bush trusts, including Ed Gillespie, Ken Mehlman and Karen Hughes; former lawmakers Rob Portman and Vin Weber; and those who could be promoted from within, such as Dan Bartlett, Joshua Bolten and Joe Hagin.

It`s also possible the president could reach out to others in his Cabinet, among them Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez.

Republicans steadfastly cling to the belief that there will be no indictments, the issue will blow over and the speculation will amount to nothing more than idle chatter.

``I don`t think anybody`s leaving,`` said Charles Black, a veteran GOP strategist and close Bush ally.

But one White House official, noting that Bush`s senior staff is tired of the long hours and increasing pressure, has told colleagues it might be best if everyone closest to the president resign and clear the way for new blood and fresh perspectives.

White House chief of staff Andrew Card has been on the job since January 2001, a mark of longevity for Bush compared with Presidents Reagan and Clinton, who each had four chiefs of staff through two terms. Even Bush`s father, George H.W. Bush, had three chiefs of staff in four years as president.

If the unthinkable happens, Republicans know where Bush will look.

Rove has been labeled ``Bush`s brain`` by administration foes and the ``architect`` of Bush`s rise to power by the president`s backers. He is considered a White House adviser without peer. Conservative activist Grover Norquist finds it hard to imagine one person handling Rove`s job.

``Karl is sufficiently sui generis (unique), it would take two or three different people to replace him,`` Norquist said.

Among the possible replacements are Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee; current RNC chief Mehlman, or Hughes, a former White House political adviser to Bush now working in the State Department.

Hughes, whose title is Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, is trying to reverse anti-American sentiment around the world.

Black said he would be surprised if Hughes left that post because Bush ``believes he`s put Karen in the most important job in the government.`` Rather, the president would likely promote from within, and White House counselor Bartlett could get the call.

Kevin Spillane, a Republican consultant in California, said Gillespie and Hughes would be the most obvious candidates.

``Hughes is unique in selling policy and has the president`s trust,`` Spillane said. ``Gillespie can juggle policy and media.``

Although Rove is considered indispensable to Bush, the political landscape has changed with no presidential election for Bush on the horizon. Mehlman can handle the politics of the 2006 midterm elections and beyond, Norquist said.

As for Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney`s chief of staff and his assistant on national security affairs, his departure would leave Cheney with the option of bringing in a trusted adviser. That could be former aide Mary Matalin or a specialist in national security, such as Eric Edelman, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey.

Edelman was national security assistant to Cheney from February 2001 to June 2003.

Republicans close to senior administration officials say it is unlikely Card would leave, especially if the White House is in a lurch with a Rove indictment. But if Card does exit, Bush could tap Gillespie; turn to Portman, the former Ohio congressman now serving as U.S. trade representative; choose one of his Cabinet secretaries or promote Card`s deputy, Joe Hagin, or Bolten, the White House budget chief.

And what if the unthinkable happens and Cheney is indicted?

Cheney has said he is not interested in pursuing the Republican nomination for president in 2008. So Bush`s choice to replace his running mate would tip the president`s hand on his preference for 2008. Florida governor and first brother, Jeb Bush?

Mohammad Gill

Re#16 SR

It is extremely off-the-mark to call Saddam’s trial a monkey trial. The fact that the US is trying to actually take him through the steps of facing up to what he has done (or at least parts of it, since the full enormity may never be known) ought to be considered a GOOD precedent and the fact that victors seldom do that (especially in THAT part of the world) ought to open some eyes around there and around here.

But it won’t, because this crowd is highly biased!

Can you describe to me what scenario would be a “fair” trial for this type of character? (Chopping the head off is not an option.)

The true answer is that no matter what the US does, it will be blamed by tons of Muslims all over the world – and the farther those Muslims are located from that scene of action – the more vociferously they would object – and the more jihadis they would dispatch!

The problem with the Gills and several others on this site is that they have convinced themselves of their own “wisdom”– through repeated talking to like-minded individuals – bogus ideas can indeed inbreed in the same manner as people can and the quality does not improve by doing that. They have fully detached themselves from realities – and not just the realities of today – even their sense of history is all distorted!

SR, before your bleeding heart goes completely ga-ga and mushy (like the rest of this crowd) over this dictator’s “courage” in saying “what gives this court the authority….” and all that other crap, please pause for a second and remember what he said when he was picked from his rat-hole – “I am Saddam Hussain, please don’t shoot!” These people can perform quite well on camera until the time to show some REAL courage comes around. The same is true of all dictators, be it Saddam, or Noriega, or Mushy! All their bravery is limited to crushing the weak. When the sawa-sher (one and quarter lion) shows up, they turn their tail into a u-shape faster than one can blink an eyelid!

Face it – most of the interactors here who are criticizing the US so vocally now were just FINE when Saddam was crushing his (majority) population. Whatever happened to the Gills of the world THEN – they were sniffing the snake?

Let’s not screw around – this screwed-up thing is all about religion – at least from THIS crowd. If there is a better explanation then that must be highly mysterious. The sad part is that this crowd is not able to swallow its own very evident religious bias!

And then of course there are the communist sympathizers like mirmirs who are fine with illegals breaking all rules of border crossings, who want the US to pump and pump money into the UN, who could NEVER run a democracy and a clean judiciary in their own countries themselves – but have the audacity to turn around and start bad-mouthing the US – simply because they can get away with it. It is not the first time I have seen such an utter lack of logic and common sense!

The bottom line is – Saddam got that country into the original lousy shape and the first war! Everything else followed. If the people of Iraq are suffering because they are being killed by the bomb-blasts and because infrastructure is being damaged – shouldn’t the logical conclusion be to blame the people who are doing the bomb blast and who are damaging the infrastructure? Then how come this crowd fails to do that?

Like the old saying goes – all thieves are cousins! I’m glad GWB has shown the guts to call their bluff.

Another advice – dump some of those “wise” friends of yours! Start with those located on this web site – if any! Good luck – I have not seen too many wise ones around here but I have been at it for only one year!

The real “turning point” needed is in your thought process – otherwise you are just taking turns and being a second fiddle at what the rest of this crowd is doing!

Sincerely,
Beej.

War in Iraq is irrelevant. Saddam is gone. Iraq will stay in one piece only if Shites, Sunnis and Kurds want it that way.

I doubt Cheney or GW Bush did anything illegal. Cheney is too smart. Bush is too dumb to think of anything devious.

Urstruly #10
`` I just wanted to record my disgust on this board; otherwise, reading anything about these arrogant fukks and war criminals makes my skin crawl. ughhh. ``

I am not a big fan of Bush. But he did kick out Saddam. I know you are a big fan of Osama/Mullah Omar brigade. Maybe you shouldn`t send planes flying into high-rises.

And indeed there will be time
To wonder, ``Do I dare?`` and, ``Do I dare?``
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the middle of my hair--
[They will say: ``How his hair is growing thin!``]
My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin--
[They will say: ``But how his arms and legs are thin!``]
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.

t. s. eliot. ``the love song of j. alfred prufrock``

When the history of the Republican party is written, by Republican authors themselves, George Bush will be the person they will blame for their demise.

The USA, over the past four decades has gone through a social revolution. It is the only influential country in the Western world that has gone from Liberalism to Conservatism, socially. It is the only influential country in the Western world, which has gone from being less religious to more religious. It is, infact, going against the trend of where the Western world is going. As an example, according to Pew, 45% of Americans now want religion in the State, i.e. they are against Secularism. While 35% of Britishers feel that David Beckham has more influence on their lives than God!

The conservative movement in the USA took a lot of effort, and reached its zenith during the Regan days, and took control of the Republican party. After which it was only matter of time, till it took over the USA. Five out of the last seven US Presidents have been Republican. And only a President of Clinton`s calibre was able to make a dent for the Demcrats.

23% of the voting population of the USA are Christian Evangelists. And 42% of the population consists of Christian Conservatives. Hence any Republican candidate only has to compete for approximately 66% of the vote, While the Democrats have to compete for nearly 100%.........

The Republicans reached a point, through the social conservative revolution, where they controlled the House, the Senate, the Executive, and are about to control the Judiciary. Something unprecedented in the last century of the USA.

All they now needed was a President who did not mess anything up. He just had to be average. Even slightly below average would have worked. Not make any stupid decisions, and just work 9-5. Like the Quarterback whose team is so powerful that it will win, even if he doesn`t do anything, other than not fumbling.......

That is when George W. Bush arrived......

In six quick years, he has undone forty long years of the conservative revolution, for the Republicans. He has fumbled at every step, even when it was impossible to fumble. This is despite the fact that he had the 9/11 tragedy, to give him a huge boost. He had to do nothing after that, and Republicans would still continue to win, forever........

There is an interesting anological comparison to Canada. In Canada, conservatives can never win. The Liberals always win. In the last election, the two conservative parties joined into one. The Liberal party had an internal coup, and broke up into two. The Finance minister kicked out his own Prime Minister, and two Deputy Prime Ministers. On top of that the USA put up sanctions on beef and lumber against Canada. If that wasn`t bad enough the Liberal party got caught in a huge financial corruption scandal. On top of that the separatist Quebec party won large gains in Quebec.

Yet the Liberals still won!! And will probably win again. Whatever seats they lost, were to the even more Liberal NDP.......

This is what the situation would and should have been in the USA for the Conservatives and Republicans. In a USA, where 2 out of every 3 citizens claims to be conservative, the Republican party should be undefeatable. However, Bush seems to have ruined it for them, in a quick 6 years.........

Re: # 9
HP

``The first and the biggest mistake was dismantling of the Iraqi army. The jobless army men provided the first wave of anti-US resistance and now it has been picked by several groups. ``


I really wonder how great of a job the originally iraqi army would have done. it was still Bathists/sunni dominated. what their attitude towards shiahs and kurds would been.

mistrust and sabotage would still be a part of daily operations.

Re: # 21

romair:

``When the history of the Republican party is written, by Republican authors themselves, George Bush will be the person they will blame for their demise. ``

you are stating as if the republicans are going to be wiped off for good.

at the most because of these inquiries, some heads would roll, may be democracts would win the presidential election (because of GOP policies).

would all that mean republican party will be gone for good?

i don`t think so.

---

``The Republicans reached a point, through the social conservative revolution, where they controlled the House, the Senate, the Executive, and are about to control the Judiciary. Something unprecedented in the last century of the USA.

All they now needed was a President who did not mess anything up. He just had to be average. ``

Don`t you think that Bush`s policy regarding gay marriage, abortion and ``operation iraqi freedom`` propaganda had any influence in winning the House, senate majority?

---

regarding the conservative revolution, when bush won in 2004, the country was almost divided 50-50 hence i don`t think conservatives had an overwheming advantage. but with the iraq situation going nowhere more people are having doubts about his leadership.

Re: # 18 {``...Can you describe to me what scenario would be a “fair” trial for this type of character? (Chopping the head off is not an option.) ...``}

When American forces took Naples in 1943, General Mark Clark appointed New York Mafioso Lucky Luciano as his senior civilian advisor. While Clark dined on fish looted from the city aquarium, Luciano knew what to do with anyone who got out of line. But Paul Bremer and the rest of the bumblers appointed by the Bush administration were only good at pleasing their masters in Washington, not ruling their subjects. They quickly made a mess of it. And now, by putting Saddam on the stand, they offer the old man a chance to make his case. Yes, the nation was a hellhole when he ran the place, but at least it was a hellhole for the Iraqi people, by the Iraqi people, and of the Iraqi people.

The noose is too good for Saddam. As I wrote in my earlier response: ``U.S. soldiers might have done better to treat him as Genghis Khan treated one of his enemies: pouring molten silver in his ear.`` Okay, I concede, maybe molten silver in the ears is going a bit too far. How about a lead slug an inch above the right ear? Is that allowed? It should be. After all that is how his sons were disposed off. The why not him? But no... no sir, the Anglo-Saxons have to appear to be civilized. What rubbish. Killing thousands of innocent bystanders in the process and shrugging it off as ``collateral damage`` is okay but one bullet in Saddam`s brain is not. This is absurd in the extreme.

The real problem for America is the problem of empire itself. It turns the imperial people into a race of “hollow dummies,” to use George Orwell’s phrase. They eventually come to believe what isn’t true and try to do what can’t be done. “Nation building” in Baghdad by an occupying army? You might as well try to get rich by borrowing money and increasing your spending.

The Anglo-Saxon Empire is, and always was, based on commerce. It succeeded by taking raw materials from the colonies, adding value by manufacturing, and reselling the products to the world. But the Aanglo-Saxons no longer make what the world wants to buy. Turn over any object at home or at the office and you are likely to find a “made in China,” or “made in Malaysia,” or “assembled in India,” notice. Increasingly, America’s old industries - such as G.M. and Kodak are going bust, unable to compete with Asian labor rates. America now has to borrow from foreigners to pay interest on the debt it owe`s.

The best way to win a war, said Sun Tzu, is to let your enemy defeat himself. That is roughly what U.S. forces are doing in Iraq. They are helping to destroy the great Anglo-Saxon commercial empire. And they are doing it in the predictable way. U.S. military power is now stretched out all over the globe. The flower of America’s high-tech puissance - the finest attack machine ever created - is now put to work guarding gas stations and ballot boxes. Meanwhile, the expense of maintaining global hegemony has risen so high the only way America can afford it is by borrowing money from the communists in China.