Anyone else read this month's Harpers? Case for Impeachment?

[im10ashus]

:wow:

We should be revolting. Here is a blurb:

That President George W. Bush comes to power with the intention of invading Iraq is a fact not open to dispute. Pleased with the image of himself as a military hero, and having spoken, more than once, about seeking revenge on Saddam Hussein for the tyrant's alleged attempt to "kill my Dad," he appoints to high office in his administration a cadre of warrior intellectuals, chief among them Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, known to be eager for the glories of imperial conquest. At the first meeting of the new National Security Council on January 30, 2001, most of the people in the room discuss the possibility of preemptive blitzkrieg against Baghdad. In March the Pentagon circulates a document entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts"; the supporting maps indicate the properties of interest to various European governments and American corporations. Six months later, early in the afternoon of September 11, the smoke still rising from the Pentagon's western facade, Secretary Rumsfeld tells his staff to fetch intelligence briefings (the "best info fast… go massive; sweep it all up; things related and not") that will justify an attack on Iraq. By chance the next day in the White House basement, Richard A. Clarke, national coordinator for security and counterterrorism, encounters President Bush, who tells him to "see if Saddam did this." Nine days later, at a private dinner upstairs in the White House, the President informs his guest, the British prime minister, Tony Blair, that "when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq."

[Blaze Diem]

1. Excellent Read! So why is Bush still our Pres again?

His ONE & ONLY mission has been, "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts";

You can take the boy outta the oil patch, but ya can't ........

[im10ashus]

3. I wish I could post the entire article.

It's riveting. Here is another blurb:

Although Blair has told Bush, probably in the autumn of 2001, that Britain will join the American military putsch in Iraq, he needs "legal justification" for the maneuver--something noble and inspiring to say to Parliament and the British public. No justification "currently exists." Neither Britain nor the United States is being attacked by Iraq, which eliminates the excuse of self-defense; nor is the Iraqi government currently sponsoring a program of genocide. Which leaves as the only option the "wrong-footing" of Saddam. If under the auspices of the United Nations he can be presented with an ultimatum requiring him to show that Iraq possesses weapons that don't exist, his refusal to comply can be taken as proof that he does, in fact, possess such weapons.

Over the next few months, while the British government continues to look for ways to "wrong-foot" Saddam and suborn the U.N., various operatives loyal to Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld bend to the task of fixing the facts, distributing alms to dubious Iraqi informants in return for map coordinates of Saddam's monstrous weapons, proofs of stored poisons, of mobile chemical laboratories, of unmanned vehicles capable of bringing missiles to Jerusalem.

By early August the Bush Administration has sufficient confidence in its doomsday story to sell it to the American public. Instructed to come up with awesome text and shocking images, the White House Iraq Group hits upon the phrase "mushroom cloud" and prepares a White Paper describing the "grave and gathering danger" posed by Iraq's nuclear arsenal. The objective is three-fold--to magnify the fear of Saddam Hussein, to present President Bush as the Christian savior of the American people, a man of conscience who never in life would lead the country into an unjust war, and to provide a platform of star-spangled patriotism for Republican candidates in the November congressional elections.

This is from the New York Online Virtual Electronic Library, so you need to have a N.Y. Drivers License, State Identification Card or N.Y. Library Card to access the site.

[KoKo]

2. Kick and Recommend........

[myrna minx]

4. I have this issue of Harper's.

This was an amazing read. Mr. Lewis Lapham out does himself with this well researched article. There is also a great essay about whether or not the American psyche can support torture. :bounce:

[im10ashus]

5. Do you know what the limit is on what I can post??

It is like a legal pleading. The best argument yet for impeachment.

[myrna minx]

6. I guess I would stick with Skinner's rule of 4 paragraphs.

I think that would give clearance for copyright protection since you are just posting a "sampling." This truly is an amazing, cogent argument.

[im10ashus]

7. I agree with you.

4 is the limit. I am just freaking the hell out. The man is a criminal. And according to the article, the "first president to admit to an impeachable offence."

[myrna minx]

8. I know. Especially when one of his *excuses*

is the War powers Act. We never officially declared war against Iraq, so that argument is moot. :crazy: I wish everyone has access to this article.

[im10ashus]

9. I could e-mail the article to people though, right?

If they can accept pdf attachments. Is that illegal?

[myrna minx]

10. I'm not an authority on copyright matters, but I would think that since

and email is "private" communication, it should be ok. :shrug: Perhaps email Skinner Or Lalarawraw to find out their thoughts. I have cut and pasted whole articles from the internet to be emailed. :shrug:

[im10ashus]

11. I will let you know their response.

Thanks for keeping this kicked. I want everyone to have a chance to read this wonderful article. :yourock:

[im10ashus]

12. I found the permalink!!!

http://harpers.org/TheCaseForImpeachment.html

I am a little slow today. Forgive me. :-)

[Stephanie]

13. This article is what the impeachment forum was based on

Did you see it on CSpan?

[im10ashus]

14. No. Are they still playing it?

I will check it out. We should be standing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C. demanding his arrest.

[Dora]

15. Personally, I think our elected representatives are revolting.

As in :puke: , not as in "revolutionary."

I'm ready to roll.

[mattclearing]

16. Yeah, I read it.

Kinda pisses you off when someone connects all the dots, don't it?

[im10ashus]

17. It most certainly does.

I can't think of any other reasons we would need to have this criminal regime impeached, incarcerated and indicted.

[Dinger]

18. K & R (nt)

[im10ashus]

19. Thanks. n/t