War critics astonished as hawk (Richard Perle) admits Iraq invasion was illegal

[IndyOp]

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

======================

CAN WE IMPEACH CHENEY & BUSH NOW NANCY?

[spanone]

1. impeach the bastards....NOW

[katty]

54. Yes! Give U.S. an EARLY X-MAS PRESENT!

[Swamp Rat]

2. Send him to the Hague.

He, too, is responsible for this illegal war.

[katty]

55. Yeah, along with the rest of the chickhawks!

[annabanana]

3. This was published 11/20?

I'm really surprised I missed it. Did we have posts here about it?

[texanshatingbush]

4. Dateline 11/20/2003

n/t

[Blashyrkh]

5. He only admitted it was illegal because he followed up with "it was right" anyway.

Don't you see he is saying that it didn't matter that it was illegal, they did the right thing, whjich makes the fact it was illegal meaningless?

What's with these headlines? Journalism is struggling.

[rateyes]

33. He's arguing "jury nullification,"

and, it's bullshit.

[MADem]

6. He's been crab crawling that way, torturously, for eons....

Unfortunately, just because "Richard Perle" says so, that doesn't make impeachment a slam-dunk. He has no weight beyond his own opinions. He could play a role testifying during an investigation, certainly, if there were motivation to impeach. But at this late stage, is it helpful?

I dunno--what would impeachment do, really?

Impeach Bush? Cheney becomes President. That's hideous. So then you go after Cheney--by the time you are done with Bush, that's six months, with skillful lawyering. It would take until after the elections in NOV to get rid of Cheney. So, the question is, is it worth it?

Impeach Cheney first? Bush selects McCain (or someone else) to replace him, making McCain (or someone else--but someone else who is RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT NOW) the heir apparent -- and giving that person a MASSIVE leg up on the campaign trail. Air Force Two takes the new VEEP all over the country, all day, every day, campaigning and making the GOP ticket that much stronger.

And he's the VEEP. So WE fucking PAY for it.

McCain would be a SHOO-IN as the replacement--the collegial Senate would vote him in unanimously, and the House would probably come to that in a voice vote, too.

Both Bush and Cheney are in a little lame duck box now. I kinda like watching them fret.

I think the impeachment ship has sailed, myself. It's a nice idea, but I don't know if it benefits the Democrats in 08. I don't want to give the GOP Presidential nominee free airfare, a plane with a nice soft bed in it, and a huge staff to make his life cushy and comfy while he tries to steal another presidential election.

[Independent_Liberal]

8. Judging from the picture at the bottom of your post,

it looks like you were somebody in favor of impeachment. You've changed your mind now?

[MADem]

16. That's wry irony. Look who's holding the sign.... nt

[Truth2Tell]

26. Soo Politics > Lives

I see.

:puke:

That's all.

[w4rma]

29. No. Politics > Laws. What lives would be saved by impeaching them? None, because

impeachment can't be completed quickly enough.

[Truth2Tell]

46. can't be completed quickly enough ??

how do you know? How do you know they wouldn't resign in the face of it? How do you know it wouldn't distract them and prevent an attack on Iran? How do you know it wouldn't take just 90 days? Or 10 days? Right. You don't know. No one does.

[w4rma]

61. I have analyzed the situation. That's how I know that they can't be convicted of impeachment until

they are almost out of office as limited by their term.

[Truth2Tell]

63. Can you share the details of your analysis?

I'd love to know what factors you believe would make a Cheney/Bush impeachment run so much longer than any other such proceedings in history?

[MADem]

58. I have no idea what that cryptic statement is supposed to mean. Politics "is greater than" Lives?

You see? Little vomiting icon??

You need to explain yourself, there. That was a bullshit generalization that made no sense, but I'll bet it made you feel important. What, precisely, are you averring?

That's all. (Dramatic conclusion).

[Truth2Tell]

62. Why yes,

what I am averring is that it's sick to place political considerations above lives.

I think it's pretty obvious that removing this administration from power is a matter of life and death - not just for American troops - but for unfortunate victims of American aggression the world over. You suggest in your post above that one of your concerns with impeachment is that it will give some replacement for Bush a leg-up in the elections of 08. (You also repeat the thoroughly discredited meme that it would take a year to do).

Aside from being utter nonsense - because a Cheney replacement would likely be a consensus placeholder like Ford - this argument of yours places 08 electoral calculus ahead of the lives of human beings. I find that to be amoral and demented. I hope that's more clear for you - and not a "bullshit generalization."

As for betting that my post "made me feel important" - nahh, it's just the internets.

[MADem]

67. Removing them could end up in massive backlash.

Why remove them when caging them is every bit as effective? If not more so?

Remove them, and you'll get more of the same, but the new guys will have a 'clean slate' for a year. And a year is enough time to cause trouble.

These assclowns, we know them. We know what to expect, we know what to watch out for. A new guy with a nice smile could pull the same shit, but you always cut a new guy a little slack.

If we remove them in 08, prior to November, we guarantee a GOP successor--that backlash I mentioned.

If we remove them in Jan 09 as a result of an election in Nov 08, President Obama/Clinton/Edwards or a Player to Be Named Later will be the one taking the oath.

I think a Cheney replacement would be McCain. He's earned it, sucking up like he has. He'd be unanimously confirmed, too. You don't tell a collegial and well-known senior Senator/war hero to fuck off, and the House would follow suit.

And he'd be able to campaign constantly, using AF 2 to make ten campaign stops in ten states every weekend. And power would make him prettier.

My 'meme' is not 'discredited.' Articles of impeachment, were they to be prepared and trundled through the system, would move at the speed of frozen molasses. You think the President has a PIKER for a lawyer? Look at who is in the John Dean seat now--why, it's Fred Fielding, John Dean's ASSISTANT. One thing that bastard did is learn from experience.

You can find these facts as 'amoral and demented' as you would like, but I'll tell ya--I'm right. If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. You aren't going to see impeachment, no matter how many puking icons you put up in posts here. You're going to see BushCo caged, and they'll be restless, angry and, as the months go by, more and more ineffectual.

[spag68]

66. Impeachment

YES it's worth it, because what they have have done is beyond anything we should have to put up with. Further what we do now impacts future generations, and NO president of either party should have these kind of powers. This is America for crying out loud.

[provis99]

7. what absolute sanguine hubris

Pearle is actually arguing it would be "morally unacceptable" to not have committed war crimes? WTF is wrong with these neo-cons? Do they have any kind of humanity at all in their shriveled, blackened hearts?

[robinlynne]

22. no

[sutz12]

9. "the defect is in international law"

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

:shrug:

[L. Coyote]

10. France was Right Afterall! The French were acting in accord with International law.

I'll have French fries for breakfast tomorrow. And then back to non-stop blogging until the impeachment or resignation. :rofl:

[awoke_in_2003]

41. Yep, the French were right

and it drives those assholes (RW'ers) nuts. I use to hear them muttering whenever i would be drinking Perrier. They finally shut up after I brought up the fact that the French were right many times. Oh, and the fact that we wouldn't exist as a country without the help of the French navy during the Revolution.

[deacon]

11. k + r n/t

[eShirl]

12. yes, 4 years ago ("Thursday November 20, 2003") they should have been impeached

and 3 years ago
and 2 years ago
and 1 year ago
and now

[Starfury]

13. So now the Iraq War is all France's fault, huh?

These people truly live in another world.

[MADem]

17. Old Freedom Fries France, not New Rightwing France. NT

[Perry Logan]

14. Don't forget: the impeachbots destroyed the impeachment movement.

[rateyes]

35. How do you figure? The people who demand that the

Constitution be followed are responsible for it not being followed?

:shrug:

[malaise]

15. Here's the Hardtalk program with Perle from

November 22nd
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7108199.stm

[bonito]

18. IMPEACH NOW! n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

19. You can't impeach Bush and Cheney because of what Perle said

or what Rumsfeld said.

[Usrename]

60. I don't recall that kind of immunity ever existing before.

So as long as Perle or Rummy admits to the crimes, those crimes are automatically pardoned somehow? It says that in the Constitution?

[mdmc]

20. impeachment makes baby jesus cry

lets just keep triangulating. eventuall it will just be the conservatives vs. the DLC/GOP. Then we will always win!

[JHB]

21. What would really be astonishing...

...is if he and the rest actually pay for their crimes.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Javaman]

23. aww mr. asshole pearle don't you hate when the law gets in the way

of defunct morals?

total jackass.

It has always been about greed to these pigs. if it actually was about doing the correct thing (per say), they would have dealt with N. Korea, who had a proven weapons program, but alas, that's why his statement is total bullshit and the repuke version of trying to cleanse his soul. More excuses that pass for their version of the truth.

[Az_lefty]

24. they just tried the same shit with Iran....IMPEACH NOW !!!!!

:grr:

[K Gardner]

25. Good god.. what else do we need to hear to do something? K&R n/t

[EVDebs]

27. Arrest this Violent Ideologist/Homegrown Terrorist -- under HR1955/S1959 nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. He is now open for arrest for war crimes

so is every upper echelon level person in the military and civiian worlds... and thank you perle, you just put at risk every last trooper.

But they house will not impeach, power is more important than doing the right thing

[EVDebs]

31. Psst. Slip an almanac into his briefcase LOL !

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/29/fbi.almanacs.ap/

[awoke_in_2003]

47. Shit, I hope I don't get pulled over

or they will lock me away. I have two- a big US almanac and a more detailed Texas almanac. Lots of notes written in them, mainly restaraunts/sites I want to visit or revisit in the future (that's a lie, I really want to blow them up, luckily I am anonymous here :) )

[AuntPatsy]

39. That is the sad truth.

[rucky]

30. He's like the Rosa Parks of the war movement.

Showing everybody how unjust those pesky international laws can be.

[rateyes]

32. If Bush had someone in her family murdered,

Nancy Pelosi would find a way to make sure Bush stayed in office. He's murdered many of her constituents' family members...but, turns a blind eye. She is worthless as the Speaker of the House. Pathetic.

[Cha]

34. So why didn't congress

act on this?

[rateyes]

36. Cowardice, is the word...

and greed is the second word.

[FiveGoodMen]

38. ...or maybe complicity. But certainly, Betrayal is the word.

[Cha]

42. Those in Congress who didn't

vote for bushit's filthy war on Iraq have the best thing in the world to be proud of..and I think there are some who voted for it who are trying to make up for being such cowardly idiots.

And then there's those who don't give a shit about anything except greed and power and couldn't care less that they voted to ignite the powder keg in the Middle East..and, oh yeah, let's bomb Iran.

[EVDebs]

37. If the new HR 1955 and S 1959 bills pass and define 'violent radicalization'

and violent ideology as the equivalent of the PNAC neocon agenda, then maybe the Bush administration should watch out for what it wants.

[Cha]

50. Well, I hope they

pass then!

[EVDebs]

51. Not really. They're the 'Thought Crimes' bills to be used against liberals

[Cha]

52. Okay...I didn't look them

up ..I was just going by what you posted and it sounded like it would be not so good for the neocons. I now remember reading about that resolution and yeah, they'd love to string us up for our thoughts..never mind our actions.

[EVDebs]

59. I was just thinking that this may come back to haunt the neocons should it pass

It all depends on who controls the 'definitions' and provides the 'findings' and oversight, something the Hughes-Ryan Act of 1974 requires but this S.1959 doesn't address.

There is a saying: "Be careful what you pray for, you might just get it".

[awoke_in_2003]

49. Fear of the re-appearance of anthrax envelops. nt

[Preening Fop]

40. Obviously, the Right Wing dems are to busy Counting their stacks of Corporate Cash....

Impeachment Investigations of Dick 'n George would surely
result in a clamp down on the corporate cash flowing
into the dem's slush funds.

[Cha]

45. Hmmm? I hadn't thought

of like that..sounds spot on!

[killbotfactory]

43. Of course it was!

But it doesn't matter because we are a superpower, and can literally get away with mass murder! Hooray! That will never change in the future, so we'll be the belligerent drunken greedy king of the world forever!

[Cha]

48. Hey, it might change..

bushites are dragging this country down into the bloody abyss..superpowers have been known to become impotent over the years.

[shanti]

44. PNAC

that's all you need to know about richard perle.

[katty]

53. SCREW YOU!!! We ALREADY KNEW THIS!

[iamahaingttta]

56. Fuck you, Richard Perle!

It is "morally unacceptable" for me not to write that on every thread that I see about Richard Perle.

[Hydra]

57. *Gah*!

:wow:
It never ceases to amaze me how these lunatics admit to illegal actions and such on camera, and yet no judicial consequences.

Anyone who speaks of rule of law here in the US should remember events like this every time they try and argue for keeping the system in place.

[Tom Joad]

64. no, we can't impeach, because it would implicate all the dumbass Dems who Supported the war.

Like Hillary, who is a Dem in the Jon Kyl mold.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

65. K&R-- Illegal war is absolutely wrong and it should end-- Sooner now, Than later...

:hi: What we had with Pearl was an overzealous warmonger--now he's trying to pass the buck... :spank: If you haven't seen these videos they explain it pretty well... 60 Minutes interview (Jan. 2004) with former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil-- reveals the secretive nature of the Bush White House, and the clear fact that Bush was determined to invade Iraq from day one! EXPOSED:part 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky2t_tDsZrk EXPOSED:-Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-D1jCZ31Uw&feature=related Countdown: The Shock Doctrine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPU7EUt6Bew

:kick: