Brits “Play Act” Indictment of Tony Blair for Iraq-Related Crimes Tomorrow on BBC

-

Sands.jpg
(Philippe Sands, Queen’s Counsel and Professor of Law, University College London)
The BBC has a must-listen show on radio tomorrow titled Called to Account (times noted further below) offering a theatrical version of Tony Blair’s indictment for Iraq War-related crimes. This may inspire many on this side of the Atlantic pond to think about various strategies to hold America’s current political leadership accountable for duplicity and mismanagement of America’s national security portfolio — and particularly for the Iraq War.
Democracy has become a term derided in much of the world today because for many beleaguered peoples it has come to mean Western duplicity, uneven standards between the mighty and the weak, an excuse for invasion and occupation, a code word for regime change, or obsessive focus on ballots rather than healthy civil society institutions like courts and a free media that help to keep power accountable.
If ‘Democracy’ is ever going to shed its bad name, accountability must be one of its fundamental pillars in any genuine system of checks and balances. There should be a price paid for serious errors by national leaders — and an even higher price paid by those who wield power with impunity and who lie to their publics in so-called democracies.
When the revelations of Abu Ghraib became public, Donald Rumsfeld should have resigned. The fact that he did not and was not fired did more to undermine the American brand than virtually anything up until that point. If there was no accountability for crimes of that scale, why should other foreign states abroad empty their torture prisons or work against corruption or not falsely promise reforms to their people while engaging in self-dealing for themselves or their sectarian interests?
America is struggling with the mess it is in and trying to figure out the power dynamics of fixing blame and responsibility for the Iraq War on national leaders. The current reality is that there is little stomach among moderates and conservatives in the United States to impeach Cheney or Bush for lying America into a war whose end one way or another has disastrous consequences for the nation. This may change — and certainly the calls for an impeachment process against Cheney have picked up some momentum, though still not enough to be successful in the view of this writer.
But BBC Radio 4 will be broadcasting a play titled Called to Account this Saturday, 14 July 2007, at 2:30 pm UK Time and at 9:30 am EST. This can be listened to over the web live or downloaded to a podcast for later listening.
One of the principals involved in this production is British barrister and writer Philippe Sands whose book, Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules — From FDR’s Atlantic Charter to George W. Bush’s Illegal War, exposed the important fact that Prime Minister Blair and President Bush decided on war with Iraq in January 2003 no matter what the outcome of diplomatic efforts.
Sands is a very serious and thoughtful legal commentator who is part of the “reasonable middle” of British political society — and the BBC’s support of such a provocative legal simulation is something that might inspire similar exercises — even in theatrical form if not real — in the United States.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

45 comments on “Brits “Play Act” Indictment of Tony Blair for Iraq-Related Crimes Tomorrow on BBC

  1. Parryisle says:

    Many of my friends have questioned the Aanglophilia acquired when I was stationed there with the USAF. Perhaps this could be answered by the fact that programs such as this are created and aired in the U.K. whereas this would never, never happen in the U.S. today. Hopefully, in time many more of us here in the U.S. will adapt to the standards of Britain in which the rules of international laws to which the U.S. is signatories to will overcome the war lust cancer that has infected us far too long.

    Reply

  2. Parryisle says:

    Many of my friends have questioned my Anglophile loyalties but perhaps this could be answered by the fact that programs such as this are created and aired in the U.K. whereas this would never, never happen in the U.S. today. Hopefully, in time many more of us here in the U.S. will adapt to the standards of Britain in which the rules of international laws to which the U.S. is signatories to will overcome the war lust cancer that has infected us far too long.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    Damnnnn, that the plannnnn.

    Reply

  4. Sandy says:

    PLEASE….PLEASE…..READ THIS:
    http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts07162007.html
    July 16, 2007
    Impeach Now
    Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy
    By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
    Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.
    Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of “executive orders” that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, “terrorist” events in the near future.
    Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.
    Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq’s border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney and a near-majority favoring Bush’s impeachment. The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered.
    William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is “praying for a terrorist strike” to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008.
    Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving the bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to start two unjustified wars, with Iran waiting in the wings to be attacked in a third war.
    The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully to resurrect the terrorist fear factor by infiltrating some blowhard groups and encouraging them to talk about staging “terrorist” events. The talk, encouraged by federal agents, resulted in “terrorist” arrests hyped by the media, but even the captive media was unable to scare people with such transparent sting operations.
    If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the “unitary executive” at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush’s declaration of “national emergency” and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.
    A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives’ Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel’s complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.
    Think about it. If another 9/11-type “security failure” were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has “a gut feeling” that America will soon be hit hard?
    Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that “between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s (sic) going to have a very different view of this war.”
    Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued. According to a number of writers, false flag operations have been routinely used by the Israeli state. During the Czarist era in Russia, the secret police would set off bombs in order to arrest those the secret police regarded as troublesome. Hitler was a dramatic orchestrator of false flag operations. False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments.
    Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging “terrorist” attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?
    Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media.
    Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator. Determined tyrants never require majority support in order to overthrow constitutional orders.
    The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown. Are coming “terrorist” events of which Chertoff warns and Santorum promises the means for overthrowing our constitutional democracy?”

    Reply

  5. WhatBillOfRights says:

    Hey, George W. What’s-His-Last-Name-Again? State of the Union address in 2003 was the “mother” of all conspiracy theories. So please let’s discard the words “conspiracy theory” and remember Schopenhaur (sp?) who said, to paraphrase, “First the truth is ridiculed, then it is attacked, then it is accepted as self-evident.”
    I learnt about the neo-cons in 2002 and was widely vilified for screaming about them to anyone who would or would not listen. I lost many of my oldest friends in my opposition to the Iraq war and my explanation that the real reason we were going into Iraq was because of a cabal of people at the highest level of *our* government whose allegiance actually lay with Israel.
    Despite that (I would venture to guess) most of my former friends have turned against the Iraq invasion, they (I would venture to guess) still do not know the root reason as to why we did it, choosing instead, if they think about it at all, that it was about oil.
    And they still don’t understand that the same plotters are about to plunge us into WW III via an attack on Iran.
    I feel that my experience is a microcosm of what many Americans’ experienced, in that the invasion of Iraq made us rethink decades-old friendships as well as family ties. Hearing people I considered kind and good talk about bombing Iraq into a glass parking lot — “kill them all and let God sort them out” was one of the phrases an old friend from high school used — made me SICK, and made me in a way hate these people who I thought I knew and whom I had loved in the past.
    But in the end, the saddest part is that we have learnt NOTHING as a nation and are being propagandized by the same players to make an even GRAVER mistake.
    And I do want to emphasize the word “Grave.”

    Reply

  6. Carroll says:

    BTW….I am curious about something.
    I leave my TV on c-span or the history channel when I am in and around the house….for the past year all I have seen or heard on the History channel is replays of Nazi Germany, day in, day out, every day. I can’t even remember when there was anything on the History channel except Hitler the past few years.
    Am I parnoid to think this is more propganda?

    Reply

  7. Carroll says:

    So all that pap (spun by the Democratic websites like Buzzflash) about the hijackers being Saudis so why should we attack Iraq, instead Saudi Arabia is our real enemy, is just that, pap.
    Posted by WhatBillOfRights at July 16, 2007 11:08 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    I am still puzzled over the claim that the hijackers were Saudi. I remember reading the intelligence reports from several other countries like Germany who had identified them at the time as mainly from Egypt. I don’t have the time to go back and dig it all up but the disagreement among different countries intelligence agencies or at least in what we are told speaks volumes.

    Reply

  8. WhatBillOfRights says:

    135 foreigners is a big deal? So 45% of 135 is 60 people — and we’re supposed to attack Saudi Arabia over this?
    I remember during the second assault on Fallujah much was made about “foreign fighters”. Lest anyone forget, we attacked and destroyed Fallujah in November of 2004 because of our claims that the city was harboring “Al Qaeda”. Well, the number of “foreign fighters” actually captured numbered around the two dozen range. Turns out it was the people of Fallujah who were fighting for their homes — GO FIGURE…
    Claims about the House of Saud funding suicide bombers and Saudi fighters should be taken with an ocean of salt. One reason being that Saudi Arabia is the ultimate jewel in the neo-con crown.
    So all that pap (spun by the Democratic websites like Buzzflash) about the hijackers being Saudis so why should we attack Iraq, instead Saudi Arabia is our real enemy, is just that, pap.
    We have rogue elements, i.e., U.S. contractors, careening around Iraq seemingly beyond any control of the U.S. military, so how can we expect the Saudi government to control its own miscreants?
    And by the way, pictures of the Iraq carnage, screened from the delicate sensibilities of American eyes, are shown around the world. It doesn’t take an Islamic government’s covert actions to recruit suicide bombers, the pictures alone will suffice.

    Reply

  9. Carroll says:

    And speaking of the Lieberman amendment on Iran killing American troops…why didn’t he mention Saudi?..hummm?…
    We all see what is going on.
    LATimes:
    About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.
    Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq’s Sunni Arab insurgency.
    He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.
    The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. …
    Others contend that Saudi Arabia is allowing fighters sympathetic to Al Qaeda to go to Iraq so they won’t create havoc at home.
    Not something the average viewer/reader would know listening to the press conferences which seemingly go out of their way not to offend the Saudis.

    Reply

  10. Carroll says:

    Posted by Arun at July 15, 2007 03:21 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>.
    Actually I didn’t post the text of Lieberman’s amendent and in my post, the link within the article may have taken you to the first draft.
    I said it “didn’t” authorize a strike on Iran..but was a “prelude” to more action against Iran…a declaration in legistation that they could use later on.
    If this doesn’t lay the ground work for future consideration in the move toward attacking Iran I don’t know what does…
    “(1) the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable and unacceptable act of hostility against the United States by the foreign government in question; and”
    And really the one word change in the amendment doesn’t change it.
    However you look at it it is not a good sign.

    Reply

  11. Kathleen says:

    Remember that NeoNutzi cruise Steve was contemplating? Here’s an account by a mole on board. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article276
    By strange fluke, while I was reading this. Turner Classic Movies was showing Ship of Fools.
    Aren’t you glad you didn’t go, Steve?
    On another fun topic, Dr. Susan Block, Sex therapist, wrote The Senator and The VEEP.
    http://counterpunch.org/block0712207.html
    Thank you, Larry Flynt for helping us rid the beltway of hypocritters.
    Keep it up, Larry. Pardon the pun.

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Military support for the republican candidates.
    NAME: TOTAL [ARMY] [NAVY] [AIRFORCE] [VETERAN]
    RON PAUL: 23,465 [6,975] [6,765] [4,650] [5,075]
    McCain: 15,825 [6925] [6305] [1795] [800]
    Romney: 3,551 [2,051] [0] [1500] [0]
    Rudy: 2,320 [1,450] [370] [250] [250]
    Hunter: 1000 [0] [1000] [0]
    Huckabee: 750 [250] [0] [500]
    Tancredo: 350 [350] [0] [0]
    Brownback: 71 [71] [0] [0]
    Thompson: 0 [0] [0] [0]
    Units are contributions in dollars by employees of the respective military organizations.
    Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly.
    Percentages:
    48.75% Ron Paul
    32.8% McCain
    7.3% Romney
    4.8% Rudy
    2.0% Hunter
    4.0% Others
    *Note: The numbers for the last five candidates have not been verified.
    http://tinyurl.com/yrygol

    Reply

  13. Sandy says:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
    Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran
    · Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
    · President ‘not prepared to leave conflict unresolved’
    Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
    Monday July 16, 2007
    The Guardian
    While Dick Cheney, left, favours military threats, Condoleezza Rice, centre, prefers diplomacy. George Bush, right, has sided with Cheney. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
     
    The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
    The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”
    The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
    Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. “The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern,” the source said this week.
    Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.
    “Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact,” said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
    The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.
    “The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action,” Mr Cronin said. “The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself.”
    Almost half of the US’s 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.
    No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.
    Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran’s uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month.
    The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran’s nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency’s deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced “good results” and would continue.
    At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.

    Reply

  14. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Carroll, there has been a definite ramping up of rabid rhetoric focused at the Muslims this last month, particularly on the RW talk radio shows. I am also seeing it on the guest postings at RW cesspool sites like Tabor’s despicable site, TCV. Remember when this piece of shit Bush was preaching that this was not a war against Muslims? Well, his actions, and his rhetoric, has brought our every sick perverted religious wacko, of both “christian”, “jewish”, and Muslim” persuasion, and gifted them with unprecedented exposure to spread their hatred.
    Remember when this bumbling son of a bitch was the self proclaimed “unifier”, instead of the “decider”? Well, he has cleaved the world community as cleanly as if by ax, and it is obviously escalating. We will be fortunate indeed if he hasn’t embarked us into the dark abyss of World War III.

    Reply

  15. Arun says:

    Carroll at July 14, 2007 10:24 AM – the Liebermann amendment that passed the Senate 97-0 is not the version in what you posted.
    http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2007/07/re-losing-thread.html
    There were at least two crucial modifications to Liebermann’s amendment before it passed. You can look it up in the Congressional Record (look for CR S9001-9002). Here is briefly what they are:-
    First, this following clause was added to the end of the Lieberman amendment:
    ” (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.”
    Second, a clause was amended to read
    ” (1) the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable and unacceptable act against the United States by the foreign government in question; and”
    (compare with the original Lieberman language
    ” (1) the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable and unacceptable act of hostility against the United States by the foreign government in question; and”
    )

    Reply

  16. Carroll says:

    Posted by PissedOffAmerican at July 15, 2007 01:55 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well, would you believe that right I am listening to the most screaming hate bitch I hav heard in a long time. From Lebanon, the author of “Why they Hate” Bridgette Gabriel.. is screeching, and I mean screeching and screaming like a banshee to a meeting of the US Joint Forces College as a “featured” speaker on why the US has to “wipe out” ALL of Islam.
    She wants ALL Muslims in the US spyed on and /or kicked out of the US. Says the Muslims want to “take over” the world. All of us Americans should spy on all religious centers of Muslims in the US and report them to the FBI. Our colleges are tools of Islamic terrorist. Professors who say anything “bad” about the US or Israel should be reported by students and barred or fired.
    She says the the military should not listen to the politicans and be prepared to destroy Islam.
    No Muslim who believes in Islam can be a loyal citizen of the US. Further, Americans are cowards who won’t stand up to Islam. She says Keith, the Mulsim elected to congress is dangerous to the US.
    She says you cannot trust a Muslim in office to be loyal to the US interest.
    And oh yea she wants Americans to give up their privacy freedoms in the US to fight Islam. Oh…and the press should be “controlled” by the government to prevent any propaganda. This woman is sick, sick,sick.
    Her hard on for Islam and for the US to destroy Islam is because she claims her people were run out of the ME because of Muslims. Oddly enough as we know there are plenty of christians living in Lebanon today.
    Of course like all exiles, she injects into her screed “our” country and of course everything she “hates” is “for the good of America”. Amazing how these types always try to justify themselves as “americans”.
    I want to know “who” invited her to speak to a meeting of the US military college.
    The hate bandwagon is really cranking up again and doing double duty. We must get rid of these people.

    Reply

  17. WhatBillOfRights says:

    In case anyone missed Bill Moyers discussing impeachment with Bruce Fein (a “conservative” Constitutional scholar now advocating impeachment)
    http://www.InformationClearinghouse.info
    (an EXCELLENT site – literately news from around the world that you will not find anywhere else in the U.S. media) has a video link to PBS.
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/video_popups/pop_vid_impeachment1-1.html

    Reply

  18. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “.. that Iran needs to open their country to nuclear plant inspections….”
    They have, and they are.
    Did Ridge mention the constructive progress that the IAEA is making in negotiations with Iran? Somehow I doubt it.
    One of the biggest dissappointments I have with Steve and this blog is that he hasn’t sought to underscore the extent of the propaganda focused at Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In fact, at times, he has seemed to contribute to the propaganda.

    Reply

  19. Marcia says:

    Kathleen:
    http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/14/2513/
    Check out this article on Common Dreams. I suggested that she fly the Betsy Ross Flag.
    Everyone is racking his brain to find some way to act.

    Reply

  20. Carroll says:

    De’ja Vou moment…
    I can hardly believe this is happening…I am listening to Tom Ridge on c-span repeat word for almost word the exact same story and spin on Iran that they used on Iraq.
    He says he agrees with Lieberman’s amendment to take action against Iran..and that Iran needs to open their country to nuclear plant inspections and so on and so forth….and “if” economic sanctions don’t work…..nukes in the hands of a “madman”..a threat to the “world” and etc,ect.
    Who will rid us of these meddling war priest?
    I can’t believe we are going to repeat ourselves all over again.

    Reply

  21. Kathleen says:

    Marcis, I meant for masses of people who usually do contribute to refuse. Yes, it is an individual action, but it is one that we are free to do, without needing to ask a limp wristed Dem to do. Obviously, we’ve been trying to get a mass movement going for some time now. If you have any suggestions on what we, as individuals can do, please offer them. I’m so convinced impeachment is vital, I’m willing to help in any way I can. Beyond calling and writing and attending functions in support of impeachment, refusing to contribute is the only action left that I can think to do.

    Reply

  22. PoliticalCritic says:

    Good for the BBC. Now that Tony Blair is unemployed, what are the chances that he goes to Iraq and fights in the war that he so desperately believes in?

    Reply

  23. Sandy says:

    It’s just a matter of time.
    Condi — like Harriet Miers — is a “lady” ….meaning the Dems don’t actually have the stomach …or spine….to become “the bad guys” and pick on these “gentle” women. PATHETIC!!!
    Meanwhile, the grinning, gap-toothed, Condi…(balls carefully placed…) takes advantage and spends her days now pursuing various star golfers like Tiger Woods and Phil Whatshisname and invites them to lunch with her, grinningly boasting that she has a new-found love of the game.
    (I just threw up a little….)
    Shocking to witness all this taking place in front of our faces….
    It will be their epitaphs, Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rove: Go F**K Yourselves!

    Reply

  24. PissedOffAmerican says:

    BTW, what is going on with Rice’s Congressional subpoena? Have these God damned coward Democrats completely discarded their oaths of office?

    Reply

  25. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Ron Paul sure seems to understand the depth of the danger we face with this administration in power. I wish more people could see what is as plain as day. The total disregard Bush/Cheney has for the rule of law, for the American people, for Congressional subpoenas, all point to an administration that KNOWS, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are not going to face accountability, impeachment, or indictment. Chertoff isn’t the only one with a “gut feeling”. Looking at the actions of this government these last few years, and particularly these last few months, dictates an application of logic that can only reach one coinclusion; This Administration intends to institute and use the full extent of the unprecedented Executive powers that it has ceded itself. The window of opportunity for impeachment has passed. We now live in a full dictatorship, under an Administration that is ignoring Congress, the law, and the will of the American people. In actuality, Chertoff’s “gut feeling” isn’t a “gut feeling” at all. It is insider’s knowledge. These bastards are about to launch their next “trifecta”, and its gonna be a doozy.
    http://tinyurl.com/36v2gw
    “Congressman, just out of the gates, Cindy Sheehan on my show yesterday went further than anybody’s ever gone, she said ‘distinct chance of staged terror attack’ or the government allowing that to happen, Bush is saying he doesn’t care what the people want, the war will continue, they’ve set up the Military Commissions Act, they’ve set up the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, he’s signed PDD 51 making himself literally dictator, he gave himself that power – how much danger are we in now with Homeland Security head feeling in his gut we’re about to be hit, Republican memos saying they need terror attacks, they need Al-Qaeda to hit us to be able to continue the war, top military strategists saying it – how much danger are we in of some new Gulf of Tonkin provocation?”
    “Well, I think we’re in great danger of it,” responded Ron Paul.

    Reply

  26. Marcia says:

    Kathleen:
    Although I contributed generously to the 2004 elections I have since ceased donating money to the Democratic Party. However, I have no illusion concerning the effectiveness of such individual gestures. It would take a mass movenent…it is this, with spinless Congress members, that permits the corporations to rule.

    Reply

  27. Carroll says:

    Posted by gq at July 13, 2007 06:12 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You are right about Wes Clark. And he sees quite clearly what is going on inside congress and has been warning and warning about the plot building to attack Iran…we have more to worry about than just Bush and Cheney impeachment..congress itself keeps inching closer and closer to a strike on Iran. So we impeach Bush and Cheney and then the next adm attacks Iran on the same shoddy grounds we used to invade Iraq and here we go again.
    The same thing is going on in congress that went on in the WH to set the stage for Iraq. If we want to talk about the US’s fading status we need to be talking about how to stop this.
    Keep your eyes on congress..Cheney is not the only threat. Note that this passed 97-0.
    Lieberman Lays the Groundwork For Another War
    Posted July 13, 2007 | 11:46 AM (EST)
    Read More: Breaking Politics News
    This week Joe Lieberman reprised a role he played so well in 2002. He paved the way for another needless and tragic war by outmaneuvering his Democratic colleagues on the Senate floor. This time he forced them to pass an amendment that seems reasonable on the surface, but which lays the groundwork a a new attack that could turn pro-Western Iranians into anti-American terrorists. It passed just as a new poll confirms that the Iranian leadership’s policies are wildly unpopular with their own people.
    Lieberman’s 2002 “Rose Garden” appearance with Bush – where he endorsed the authorization for war in Iraq without further changes – destroyed ongoing negotiations to limit the President’s war options that were taking place between Democrats like John Kerry and Republicans like Richard Lugar. (Kerry described that move – a betrayal of genuine bipartisanship – in our 2006 conversation.) Now he’s done it again.
    The Lieberman amendment sets the nation up for a Gulf of Tonkin moment – one that can be used to justify military strikes against Iran, with the President reassuring the nation that he has bipartisan support. It was worded in such a way that voting against it would have been political suicide for Senators.
    Does that scenario sound familiar?
    The amendment sounds reasonable enough on its face. (Text is here.) It asks for bimonthly reports from the military regarding “external support or direction provided to anti-coalition forces by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran or its agents … the strategy and ambitions in Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran; and …. any counter-strategy or efforts by the United States Government to counter the activities of agents of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Iraq.”
    It was a shrewdly worded document. Any Democrat who voted against it would have opened him- or herself up to accusations that of being afraid to face the facts about Iranian involvement in Iraq. And we know that Iran is involved in Iraq in certain ways. After all, it’s been invited there – by the very government our troops are sacrificing themselves to defend. In fact, the Iraqi government is so close to its Shi’ite neighbor that it quickly invited it to open an embassy in Baghdad.
    Predictably, the Lieberman measure passed 97-0. But it’s not the reporting requirements themselves that are dangerous – it’s the amendment’s language. It lists a hodgepodge of undocumented and inflammatory accusations before stating that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable and unacceptable act of hostility against the United States by the foreign government in question.” These are words that invite an act of war against Iran, even in the absence of clear evidence of involvement.
    The amendment doesn’t just ask for intelligence on Iranian activity. It requires ongoing reports on proactive U.S. efforts against alleged Iranian efforts, placing political pressure on our military to become more active against Iran. Word in Washington is that top military leaders are resisting an attack on Iran, saying we lack the resources. This is a great way to lean on the generals to change their minds.”

    Reply

  28. Kathleen says:

    Marcia; we’ve been struggling with that very dilemna. How to achieve impeachment with no real opposition party? I think the best way to a politician’s heart is through their wallet. I know the major candidates get the bulk of their dough from corporate interests, but they are still sufficiently self-deluded about not being beholdened to special interests, to still need support from we Lilliputians. Soooo, I will not contribute to any candidate who doesn’t support Impeachment. Just this morning I received an email from Democrats asking for contributions. I wrote back: Take two aspirin and wake me when impeachment is on the table.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    I do contribute to the candidates who do support impeachment, Kucinich and Gravel. If Clinton and Edwards succeed in eliminating the other candidates from the debates, they’ll bore us to death. Talk about a big turn offfff.

    Reply

  29. Carroll says:

    Posted by kotzabasis at July 14, 2007 12:47 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    What the hell is “Islamist” terror? Is that like Christian terror? Or Jewish terror? Or Capitalist terror?

    Reply

  30. jonst says:

    The “reasonable middle”? Is that sorta like our US “reasonable middle”? You know, the one that gave firm support to the initial invasion? The one that just voted 98-0 to give Bush a free hand in Iran? Is that the “reasonable middle” you mean? The one that makes sure THEIR kids go some where else but the military? Well, I grant you, they are often the first bunch off a sinking ship. And I’ll grant you, they are great at giving us ‘entertainment’.

    Reply

  31. kotzabasis says:

    The cause celebre indictment will be the liberal intelligentsia’s accountability before history for its PLAY ACT with the greatest threat Western civilization encountererd in the twenty-first century, i.e., Islamist terror and its state sponsors.
    This will be the “Play Act” Indictment of the liberals crime for treating this ominous danger with derisiveness and facetiousness, as this play act on Blair, and others, illustrates. But on this stupendous irresponsibility of the liberals, history will place a gravestone upon them from which they will never be able to disentomb themselves.

    Reply

  32. Sandy says:

    Thank you, WBOR, for the heads up about the Bill Moyers show on impeachment.
    Wow, it was just outstanding! Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer, was passionate and eloquent in expressing his belief in the Constitution and the need to hold both Bush and Cheney accountable for trampling on it…playing monarchs. Nichols was excellent, too. No doubt there will be a transcript next week on the PBS site. Well worth reading.
    They seem as discouraged as some of us that there even ARE any Congress people now who have those same convictions….principles. Who aren’t completely driven by personal politics over the interests of this country first.
    They say: Get on with it! (Impeaching both, that is.)
    Again, as Nichols said to Moyers, impeachment isn’t a punishment…..it is a hearing of the evidence. And (they both said) there is plenty of evidence now of high crimes and misdemeanors on both. And, it is a service to the American people to demonstrate ….now…..that these same “kingly” powers Bush and Cheney have taken for themselves…..have been a complete overreach….and never meant to be allowed by the founders. And, unless we want to turn over the same set of (abuse of) powers .,…on to the next president…..and completely lose sight of the Constitution….we must do it NOW!
    I haven’t felt so encouraged in a long time.
    (I’ll defer thinking about what the Dems WON’T in fact have any courage or integrity to actually follow through and do on this.)
    For tonight at least.

    Reply

  33. ... says:

    Kathleen 9:46 am – i agree with your 100%.

    Reply

  34. David N says:

    Pathetic.

    Reply

  35. gq says:

    A month or two ago, Wes Clark gave a lecture at Johns Hopkins. He stated quite strongly that in order for us to regain our international credibility–and domestic credibility–we need to go back and hold people accountable for leading us into the Iraq war and getting the post invasion so completely wrong. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the furthest any of the credible presidential candidates have taken the discussion.
    If we do end up going this dramatic route, I don’t know of any person who would be better to get this country through that than Wes Clark. He’s also one of the only people running who believes that it is of fundamental interest to hold people accountable in more ways than just an election.
    There’s no good way for links on this site (why, Steve, why?) but you can go to his site at securingamerica.com to find the speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

    Reply

  36. gq says:

    A month or two ago, Wes Clark gave a lecture at Johns Hopkins. He stated quite strongly that in order for us to regain our international credibility–and domestic credibility–we need to go back and hold people accountable for leading us into the Iraq war and getting the post invasion so completely wrong. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the furthest any of the credible presidential candidates have taken the discussion.
    If we do end up going this dramatic route, I don’t know of any person who would be better to get this country through that than Wes Clark. He’s also one of the only people running who believes that it is of fundamental interest to hold people accountable in more ways than just an election.
    There’s no good way for links on this site (why, Steve, why?) but you can go to his site at securingamerica.com to find the speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

    Reply

  37. erichwwk says:

    Saddam Hussein was assassinated for executing *148* Iraqis (they were ones alleged to have tried to assassinate him).
    Why should Blair,Cheney, Bush, et al not face similar charges, and the court outcome be similar?
    Is it because, as Voltaire said, “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets”?

    Reply

  38. SmellaRat says:

    I agree with profmarcus that we getting close to that tipping point. As Steve describes, “…the calls for an impeachment against Cheney have picked up some momentum, though still not enough to be successful…”
    Impeachment requires impeachers. It isn’t just going to happen de novo. Something like Iran might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back (a spine made of iron to be sure).

    Reply

  39. WhatBillOfRights says:

    This week Bill Moyer’s Journal on PBS will discuss impeachment with noted Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein. Here’s how to find out when the program airs:
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/about/airdates.html

    Reply

  40. profmarcus says:

    thanks for calling this to our attention…
    if the u.s. isn’t yet at a tipping point, we are getting damn close… the extension of executive privilege to include not only spurning a subpoena but also an outright refusal to appear (as in harriet miers no-show before the house judiciary committee yesterday) is an in-your-face demonstration of the stunning degree of lawlessness that is the hallmark of this presidential administration…
    the first order of business, superseding anything else, is getting this crowd OUT of the white house before they can wreak more havoc… the second is undoing the outrages they have perpetrated against our constitution framework BEFORE a new president takes office… the third requires that we hold these criminals accountable in the fullest possible sense, and insure that the maximum consequences are imposed, and that needs to take place both domestically as well as on the world stage… our future as a nation, our future in the world of nations, and our ability to look ourselves in the mirror each morning depend on it…
    http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  41. Carroll says:

    I really want to see this.
    Good for the BBC, this would never be shown on any US corp network.
    If we ever get up the guts for our revolution the first thing we are gonna have to do is liberate the US press and media.

    Reply

  42. Marcia says:

    You are so right. Accountability not only must be, but is the fundamental pillar. The carefully crafted tool of impeachment provided by the founders was not an after thought but a wise precaution based on knowledge of human nature and the experience of unfettered power.
    The dilemna is where to start. Congress is corrupt, corporate money controls the very air they breath; the monopolization of the press and TV media is again on a level unknown since before WWII, the Supreme Court is stacked to ensure the “unitary executive.”
    There are times when I think we should all be out in the streets with a tin pan and a spoon or shouting under people’s windows like a town-crier to warn of attack.
    There certainly would be actors ready to play such a drama but what network would show it?
    There seems to be little stomach at all among these “honorable ladies and gentleman” in Washington. Now would be the time for them to earn their title of “honorable”…it is almost past time.

    Reply

  43. Kathleen says:

    Sorry, but do the whole world a favor and just impeach the bastards, already before we’re all marched off to some Halliburton built cncentration camp.
    Democratz are complicit in this wrecking of our republic by considering Busholini’s crimes as an inconvenient truth that they hope will go away of its own accord. If defending our Constitution from domestic enemies is “not worth it” as Speaker Pelosi puts it, then your goddamned re-electioin isn’t worth it either.
    Get day job.

    Reply

  44. Hugh Peters says:

    Yes, yes, I see what you are getting at! We can start out with the theatrical form of hanging effigies and then proceed to demanding the real thing after a proper trial and inevitable conviction for lying our country into a premeditated unnecessary, illegal and immoral war of aggression that has resulted in the death of 100,000+.
    Brilliant, simply, brilliant!

    Reply

  45. John B. says:

    Rumsfeld couldn’t resign after Abu Ghraib. He wasn’t alone on ordering torture. It was an administration policy implemented by Rumsfeld sure, but ordered by Cheney and Bush.
    He was doing what he was asked.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *